Three revert rule violation onBubble hash (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).JR_Pietri (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:[1]
• 1st revert:18:16, 2 August 2006
• 2nd revert:19:02, 2 August 2006
• 3rd revert:19:44, 2 August 2006
• 4th revert:21:59, 2 August 2006
• 5th revert23:57, 2 August 2006
• 6th revert00:43, 3 August 2006
• 7th revert01:24, 3 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 01:06, 3 August 2006

Notes: This is a complex incident, and I already reported it toWP:AIV[2]While these may not all be regarded as identical reverts, theeffect of the edits has been to reinsert the user's unreferenced and undiscussed views, to the great detriment of the article.

Time report made: 10:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• 24 hours.El_C12:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onNormans (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Comanche cph (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:00:53, 22 July 2006
• 1st revert:23:32, 31 July 2006
• 2nd revert:11:30, 3 August 2006
• 3rd revert:12:51, 3 August 2006
• 4th revert:12:58, 3 August 2006

This is a complex issue with a user refusing to axcept information given contrary to his opinion and with a history of using reverts to disrupt progress on the issue.Inge12:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• No 3RR^{(31 July?)}, no action.El_C12:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I realise that, but this user has been using the revert tactic on this and other articles for too long. He has apparently finally learned to technically avoid the 3RR, but the problems he is causing remains.Inge02:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Inge should get a punishment for this fake accuse on me. This is a part ofInge attacking tactic against me to camouflageIngeunsources and pro-Norwegian edits on history pages. Now onNormans. You should think the case here on wikipedia was very simple, that you just need citing sources before edit pages. But not forInge. All i do is revert unsources rewrite back to old version. --Comanche cph07:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onCraig MacTavish (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).70.16.129.57 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:08:03, August 3, 2006
• 1st revert:13:17, August 3, 2006 (AEST)
• 2nd revert:14:58, August 3, 2006
• 3rd revert:21:14, August 3, 2006
• 4th revert:21:37, August 3, 2006

and a

• 5th revert:21:57, August 3, 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 11:42 UTC

User has also abused reverting editors several times in edit summaries:

• (cur) (last) 21:57, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE LIKES YOU YOU. THE TRUTH CAN NOT BE SNUFFED OUT; THIS ISN'T AN ORWELLIAN "1984" SITE, IS IT? ARE YOU THAT BIG A FAN OF THIS GUY THAT YOU MUST HIDE THE TRUTH?)
• (cur) (last) 21:37, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (THE SOURCE IS CREDIBLE, SO STOP BEING AN A$$WIPE)
• (cur) (last) 21:14, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (FACT WAS CITED AS PER YOUR REQUEST. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN CHANGE THE FACTS.)
• (cur) (last) 14:58, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (HERE WE GO AGAIN!)
• (cur) (last) 13:17, August 3, 2006 70.16.129.57 (Talk) (Re-revert to original - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WHAT WAS WRITTEN, YOU JACKASS)

Time report made: 12:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• 24 hours.El_C13:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Block evasion atUser:70.16.135.209[3].20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onBubble_hash (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).JR_Pietri (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to: Cannot be filled. They are not straight reverts, rather edits that result in reverting to a version that is spam filled and suited to promote their product.This is the best I could come up with, but the following reverts are far worse.
• 1st revert:18:13, 2 August 2006
• 2nd revert:19:02, 2 August 2006
• 3rd revert:20:13, 2 August 2006
• 4th revert:21:59, 2 August 2006 (multiple edits with the effect of reverting)
• 5th revert:23:57, 2 August 2006 (same as above)
• 6th revert:00:43, 3 August 2006
• 7th revert:01:24, 3 August 2006
  • Note that these reverts occur as part of blatant spamming of the page by that user. He reverts versions that provide good background material on what Bubble hash is to those that promote his companies new extraction method (complete with patent number). He has been warned about spam several times, vandalism more than once and of course 3RR.

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 01:06, 3 August 2006

Time report made: 13:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
User has already been reported and blocked. Sorry about this, I didnt see it.Viridae^Talk13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onThe Root of All Evil? (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Laurence Boyce (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• 1st revert:[4]
• 2nd revert:[5]
• 3rd revert:[6]
• 4th revert:[7]
• 5th revert:[8]
• Article history page[9]

(If my layout is incorrect please check the article history page instead)

Time report made: 15:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the times. Because they weren't in 24h. No blockWilliam M. Connolley19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onInvisible (Ashlee Simpson song) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).68.44.16.135 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:03:20, 28 July 2006
• 1st revert:20:01, 2 August 2006
• 2nd revert:16:08, 3 August 2006
• 3rd revert:17:48, 3 August 2006
• 4th revert:17:53, 3 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 17:51, 3 August 2006

Time report made: 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User refuses to discuss his/her edits or explain them at all; (s)he just reverts to his/her preferred version wholesale, in the process undoing genuinely useful edits.Extraordinary Machine18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours.Stifle (talk)21:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onKansas_evolution_hearings (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Schlafly (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:19:34, 29 July
• 1st revert:14:58, 2 August
• 2nd revert:17:41, 2 August
• 3rd revert:18:47, 2 August
• 4th revert:10:54, 3 August

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 11:00, 3 August

Time report made: 20:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• The first one isn't a revert, although the other three are. No violation.Stifle (talk)21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're mistaken, the 1st one is a revert, it removed the word "creationist"14:58, 2 August just as the version being reverted to did:19:34, 29 July. That makes 4, and a violation.FeloniousMonk21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• The hell it isn't a revert -- same section of the article, same overall purpose. Which part of the following does Schlafly's edits not violate? "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting."•Jim62sch•21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Stifle, could you say why you feel the first edit isn't a revert? I was about to issue a block before I saw your comment, because it looks like a clear violation to me.SlimVirgin^(talk)21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Of course it's a revert; he keeps removing any description of the witnesses.Jayjg^(talk)22:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• They didn't all go back to the same version, although I guess they all had the effect of undoing someone else's work. El C is right.Stifle (talk)10:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• 24 hours.El_C23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Skinmeister (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:  ?

• 1st revert:22:17, 2 August 2006
• 2st revert:10:44, 3 August 2006
• 3nd revert:11:28, 3 August 2006
• 4rd revert:19:29, 3 August 2006
• 5th revert:19:58, 3 August 2006
• 6th revert:20:09, 3 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 11:35, 3 August 2006

Time report made: 20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Many warnings and some blocks listed in his user page. Also, I don't know what "* Previous version reverted to:" is and examples here doesn't seem to help me. If someone could dumb it down a little for me on my talk page that would be nice ;)

• "Previous version reverted to" is simply theold version of the page which, after the reverts were made, was reinstated. Adding a fifth revert instead means that it isn't strictly needed.Stifle (talk)21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• The first one is not by this editor, but any four from the other five are enough to earn a 24 hour block.Stifle (talk)21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onHamas (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Tazmaniacs (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:14:40, 1 August 2006
• 1st revert:01:18, 3 August 2006
• 2nd revert:01:33, 3 August 2006
• 3rd revert:18:43, 3 August 2006
• 4th revert:20:35, 3 August 2006
• 5th revert:21:09, 3 August 2006

• Keeps inserting two sections into the intro, one which says Russia does not list Hamas as a terrorist group, and a second section about Reuven Paz, statingThe same report also quoted Reuven Paz, former head of research for theShin Bet (Israeli intelligence agency), who described Hamas as "an authentic product of Palestinian society under Israeli rule, more so than the PA." (Palestinian Authority). Was warned twice in edit summaries about 3RR, once after his third revert,20:14, 3 August 2006, and once after his fourth revert.20:57, 3 August 2006 Has been blocked for edit-warring before, and was asked to revert himself after violation 3RR.[10]Jayjg^(talk)22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• 24 hours.El_C23:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onFahrenheit 9/11 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).84.103.54.250 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:08:55, 3 August 2006
• 1st revert:16:40, 3 August 2006
• 2nd revert:17:15, 3 August 2006
• 3rd revert:17:47, 3 August 2006
• 4th revert:17:59, 3 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 17:51, 3 August 2006
  • Blocked for 24 hours.Jayjg^(talk)22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onUEFA Champions League 2006-07 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Lowg (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable:17:11
• 1st revert:02:31 August 3rd
• 2nd revert:16:19 August 3rd
• 3rd revert:17:00 August 3rd
• 4th revert:02:10 August 4th

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 13:14

Time report made: 02:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:After a compromise was earlier reached on this subjecthere,User:Lowg continues to insist on making a change that I (and others) contend is inaccurate. In addition to my warning, the user is clearly aware of the 3RR as he has been blocked before. -Pal02:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This was not a violation of the 3RR as the reverts are different from one another. And the changes are not subtle. One change is a full paragraph. Also, if you wish to report him again, please use diffs. What you used here are not diffs but instead are what the page looked like at that particular time. For example, for 02:31,this is the diff. And one final thing. Please use the time as we use it, not a conversion to your local time. It makes it much easier for us to track. --Woohookitty^(meow)10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onJoe Lieberman (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).LionO (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• 1st revert:03:54, 4 August 2006
• 2nd revert:03:57, 4 August 2006
• 3rd revert:04:01, 4 August 2006
• 4th revert:04:02, 4 August 2006

Time report made: 05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Just from looking at the user's contribs, there are perhaps several dozen reverts here. --Emufarmers^(T/C)05:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onJoe Lieberman (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Stephenzhu (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

Time report made: 05:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:Warring withUser:LionO above; see those diffs for details. --Emufarmers^(T/C)05:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• 1st revert:13:48, 4 August 2006
• 2nd revert:13:55, 4 August 2006
• 3rd revert:14:14, 4 August 2006
• 4th revert:14:33, 4 August 2006
• 5th revert:15:05, 4 August 2006

Comments:Makes rapid reverts ignoring discussion while making personal attacks in edit descriptions. User has been 3rr and found guilty of violating Wikipedia guidelines regarding personal attacks on previous occasions. Request user be permanently banned from editing this page any further.59.14.200.24215:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that this IP address is one of several all making the same reversions on that article, characteristics ofUser: Lightbringer and the various sock puppets used to work around the ArbCom ruling banning him from Freemasonry and related articles.ALR15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the above editor engaged in the same pattern of repeat revisions on this page engaging in the same type of personal attack and innuendo. There appears to be a group of editors with the same p.o.v. working together here.59.14.200.24215:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the open proxy edits to theanti-masonry page for a fourth and fifth time today and am calling attention toWikipedia:3rr#Exceptions, expecially "Reverting banned or blocked users." There is no doubt in my mind and other frequent editors have shared this opinion that the open proxy assualt is from Lightbringer. He has used open proxies in the past. He frequently uses misleading edit summaries. This edits are carbon copies of ones he's attempted before. He has also accused that this "page is about anti-masonry not conspiracy theory" on several occasions. There is currently a request to lock the page being processed atWikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection.Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lightbringer has further proof of Lightbringer using open proxies.

Furthermore, I have never been "3rr and found guilty of violating Wikipedia guidelines regarding personal attacks on previous occasions" Check my block log at [[11]], this is a flat out lie in an attempt to discredit me. Another common tactic of Lightbringer.Chtirrell15:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has a lengthy pattern of multiple 3rr and personal attack violations under multiple user names. It is STRONGLY suspected that this individual is the sock of a banned user as he exhibits exactly the same edit patterns including making false allegations, personal attacks, flaunting Wikipedia guidelines, and trying to bully and even impersonate administrators.59.14.200.24215:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page to deal with the anon revertingWilliam M. Connolley17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Which "banned user" am I? When have I attempted to impersonate an admin? Which wikipedia guideline have I flaunted? What lengthy pattern of 3rr do I have? These are all complete fabrications. This is complete nonsense by a banned user ( Lightbringer) attempting to discredit the consistant editors of theFreemasonry and related articles, which he is banned from. Here is my informationChtirrell (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki), anyone can see that his alligations are without merit.Chtirrell18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onHuman_rights_in_Israel (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable: n/a
• 1st revert:03:52 August 1, 2006
• 2nd revert:04:00 August 1, 2006
• 3rd revert:04:03 August 1, 2006
• 4th revert:04:21 August 1, 2006
• 5th revert:22:43 August 2, 2006
• 6th revert:22:47 August 2, 2006
• 7th revert:22:48 August 2, 2006

Time report made: 06:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

The 1st aug ones have been considered already. The 2nd of aug aren't 4RWilliam M. Connolley07:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onForeign relations of Greece (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Adam Carr (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• 1st revert:15:17, 4 August 2006
• 2nd revert:15:37, 4 August 2006
• 3rd revert:15:49, 4 August 2006
• 4th revert:16:12, 4 August 2006
• 5th revert:17:44, 4 August 2006
• 6th revert:19:04, 4 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

User warned on his talk page, here[12]Moreover, the offending user had earlier threatened an opposing editor of reporting him for violating the 3RR[13] , which constitutes proof that Adam Carr was well aware of the rule and has violated it knowingly.

Time report made: 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:User Adam Carr has been confrontational over his reverts, even to the point of challenging an opposing editor to a revert war, and declaring that he "usually wins them"[14] (see bottom of the page).

24h, and for the anonWilliam M. Connolley17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onEvolution.Aiden (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:12:55
• 1st revert:12:34
• 2nd revert:12:40
• 3rd revert:12:43
• 4th revert:12:48

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 12:49

Time report made: 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Not obviously 4 revertsWilliam M. Connolley20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In specific, the "previous version reverted to" is a later version, and is a diff, when it should be anoldid. Feel free to correct this report to provide the necessary information.Stifle (talk)23:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onUEFA Champions League 2006-07 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) andUEFA Cup 2006-07 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Lowg (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

Violations onUEFA Champions League 2006-07:

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable:[15]
• 1st revert:[16]
• 2nd revert:[17]
• 3rd revert:[18]
• 4th revert:[19]

Violations onUEFA Cup 2006-07:

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable:[20]
• 1st revert:[21]
• 2nd revert:[22]
• 3rd revert:[23]
• 4th revert:[24]

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• [25]

Time report made: 19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:This user continues to engage in edit warring, ignoring compromises and making accusations of bad faith in order to get his way. Additionally, he is well aware of the 3RR given his block log. -Pal19:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You've *both* broken 3RR... sigh... 24hWilliam M. Connolley20:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onIntelligent Design (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).FeloniousMonk (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable:00:28, 3 August 2006

1. Revision as of 15:47, 3 August 2006[26]
2. Revision as of 16:31, 3 August 2006[27]
3. Revision as of 14:56, 4 August 2006[28]

Time report made: 21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• FeloniousMonk knows the 3RR very well and uses it against editors who try to counter his POV pushing.

• This doesn't look like a valid report. The link given as the version reverted to isn't a Wikipedia page, and then only three edits are cited.SlimVirgin^(talk)21:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've corrected the links, and the three edits are part of a pattern of edit warring in which FM refuses to let permit edits by anyone outside a small group of like-minded contributors. --Uncle Ed16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of his other behavior, he only made three reverts and thus did not violate the 3RR.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onBig Eight Conference.Ed_g2s (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:Reversion as of 02:15, 3 August 2006
• 1st revert:02:38, 4 August 2006
• 2nd revert:14:09, 4 August 2006
• 3rd revert:20:24, 4 August 2006
• 4th revert:01:16, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• Warned byUser:Sceptre on15:43, 1 August 2006

Time report made: 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:This is more removal of unfree images. Editors reverting unfree image cleanup attempts need to stop.Jkelly03:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is the reversions need to stop. Because it seems like this is fitting the definition of an edit war. Discussion is on going and without consensus on the policy interpretations these pages are being reverted.BCV04:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The options here are to lock the page, block the editors in violation of unlicensed image policy, or to continuously apply cleanup efforts. What do you recommend?Jkelly04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be combative but I do not subscribe to the interpretation that use of the logos violates the policy although this may not be the forum for that discussion.BCV04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to not be further republishing these images until the policy matter is settled. No block.Jkelly04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Curious how quick that decision was made. Given the involvement in [Mediation Case: Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific]BCV04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read the page, you'll notice that I was listed there to provide an opposing view, not because I've ever edited one these college football articles that the cleanup attempt is being applied to.Jkelly04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking someone not involved in the case would provide an object view on whether a violation had occurred but since that is not possible obviously a violation did not occur.BCV04:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onNyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Dicklyon (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
• 1st revert:17:29, 4 August 2006
• 2nd revert:05:00, 5 August 2006
• 3rd revert:05:13, 5 August 2006
• 4th revert:05:23, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 05:19, 5 August 2006

Time report made: 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: i'm just trying to put a lid on this guy who insists on rewriting the whole article (which should be allowed to stableize lest "edit creep" move it from a reasonably good article to something much different. he's been at it for weeks. he's making wholesale changes without listening to the reservations of others. it's about time he play by the rules and i warned him about 3RR just before his last revert.

If you read the talk, you'll see that I am seeking incremental improvements to a long wordy section that Rbj wrote, and rather than discuss it with me he reverts, goes a different direction, and calls me a dumptruck.Dicklyon05:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like 4R to me... as is traditional, you haven't filled in the "prev version"William M. Connolley08:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

i itemized them. i never understood exactly what "prev version" is. you would think that this would be a stable article, being a fairly dry technical article, but the version changes so often, dozens of changes per day, that i actually would not be able to tell you what the "base version" is.r b-j16:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the article will reach a stable version when it is still full of both not-quite-right and not-quite-logical attempts to be semi-rigorous. That's why we're working on it. If you continue to vigorously defend your big bloated section against improvements, that doesn't make it stable. And if you continue to ignore my pleas to engage in discussion, on the article talk page and your own talk page, we're not likely to find an easy way forward.Dicklyon17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

the issue here is whether or not you reverted my changes to the article more often than 3 times in a 24 hour period. content discussion is on the talk page.r b-j20:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do hereby confess to that crime, and I apologize and won't let it happen again. I've since added lots more discussion on the talk page, and still see no responses from you there or elsewhere.Dicklyon22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onZürich International Airport (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Swiss Aviation Supporter (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:10:52 5 August 2006
• 1st revert:3:04 5 August 2006
• 2nd revert:7:11 5 August 2006
• 3rd revert:8:54 5 August 2006
• 4th revert:10:52 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• DiffTime

Time report made: 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Oh good grief you've both broken 3rr... 12h eachWilliam M. Connolley18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just checking to make sure I didn't violate 3RR atPoliticization of science.

I was making one continuous series of edits to the Examples sections about eugenics, based on Crichton's published views. Two or 3 times while making these consecutive edits I was reverted by Duncharris (2x) and Kenosis (1x).

I went ahead and finished the edit series (which I consider to be "one"), noting in the Edit Summary that I would self-revert afterwards so as not to run afoul of 3RR and offering to discuss the matter in talk.

I figured that in order to have anything to discuss, it would be good to finish the edit (which included source for a POV about Crichton). Indeed, Kenosis copied the removed text to talk, with a comment (which I answered).

So I don't think this was an edit war. --Uncle Ed17:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, how do get to the point of possibly violating 3RR if you're not edit warring. I encourage everyone to take a look at Ed Poor's edit history to see any number of examples of edit warring and POV pushing at a number of articles.[29]128.64.146.21

Relevant policy:

• "For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one."

Was this a violation on my part? If so, would you please guide me so I can make sure I don't repeat it? I don't want to edit war about this. I'd prefer to talk it out on the discussion page and come to consensus. --Uncle Ed17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you were an admin and bureaucrat, how can you possiblynot know the answer to this question? I must admit that this is one of the more interesting tactics I've seen..."Your Honor, you mean going through a stop sign is illegal? I thought you could go through the ones with white around the edges."•Jim62sch•21:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed is being extremely upfront about all of this, the least that could be done is give him a good faith answer.Arkon04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onBarbara Schwarz (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).HResearcher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:[30]
• 1st revert:11:55
• 2nd revert:11:57
• 3rd revert:12:06
• 4th revert:12:51
• 5th revert:

13:36

• 6th revert:

13:47

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 13:49

Time report made: 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

12h. I don't think the BLP get-out-of-jail-free card appliesWilliam M. Connolley19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I never was in jail, and never needed such a card. Here is the policy William M. Connolley refused to abide by:

WP:BLP states:

Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as anexception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See theblocking policy andWikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (seeWP:CSD criterion A6).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."1

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."2

Have a good night. --HResearcher08:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onAllsvenskan (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Johan_Elisson (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to, if applicable:13:15, 5 August 2006
• 1st revert:18:27, 5 August 2006
• 2nd revert:20:41, 5 August 2006
• 3rd revert:20:51, 5 August 2006
• 4th revert:20:57, 5 August 2006

Time report made: 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• My first reporting of any vandalism/3RR/whatever, so please be gentle if I've messed up... If User 213.112.123.28 and User Lion666 are the same, that might also qualify for a partial revert.Suede19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• SeeUser talk:Johan Elisson#Three-revert rule for my opinion on this report. –Elisson•Talk19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onSwift Vets and POWs for Truth (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Crockspot (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:Revision as of 03:44, 3 August 2006
• 1st revert:Revision as of 09:44, 4 August 2006
• 2nd revert:Revision as of 10:57, 4 August 2006
• 3rd revert:Revision as of 14:37, 4 August 2006
• 4th revert:Revision as of 15:03, 4 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• Warned byUser:El_C on20:07, 3 July 2006

Time report made: 00:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Three revert rule violation onUnited Devices Cancer Research Project (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).MoonFlute (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:02:50, 5 August 2006
• 1st revert:19:29, 5 August 2006
• 2nd revert:19:43, 5 August 2006
• 3rd revert:19:48, 5 August 2006
• 4th revert:19:51, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• 19:50, 5 August 2006

Time report made: 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments:This is my first 3RR violation report. I realised later that in my zeal yesterday, I broke 3RR myself, but I see that MoonFlute continues to persist today. I will hold back and let others sort this one out. --Ghewgill19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment:The user has continued to persist:

• 5th revert:2006-08-05T12:31:53
• 6th revert:2006-08-07T18:59:29

--Bovineone14:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onBattle of Bint Jbeil.User Flayer:

• Previous version reverted to:VersionTime
• 1st revert:Reversion of 20:16, 5 August 2006
• 2nd revert:Reversion of 19:58, 5 August 2006
• 3rd revert:Reversion of 18:04, 5 August 2006
• 4th revert:Reversion of 09:10, 5 August 2006
• 5th revert:Reversion of 20:11, 5 August 2006
• 6th revert:Reversion of 09:10, 5 August 2006
• 7th revert:Reversion of 09:10, 5 August 2006
• 8th revert:Reversion 20:56, 5 August 2006

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• Fair warning

Comments:

• As a novice user and my first 3rr report I am certain I have made formatting mistakes, My apologies.--Freepsbane20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• the user in question may have done this on other occasions and may also be using sockpupets, he never acknowledges other users comments, and seems to be completely unwilling to compromise. Further more his relentless edit warring seems to have brought any constructive additions to a halt.--Freepsbane20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Also as a junior member I am quite inept at this matter so I need an admin to take this out of my hands.--Freepsbane20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• the user flayer seems to be an unregistered but named user.--Freepsbane20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Lengthy block issued on my part due to severity and persistence of reverts in this case.RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!)04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that theremust be 4 reverts listed - reports with only 3 will be removed. The "previous version reverted to" is there to show that the first revert really is a revert - it should be filled in to a previous version of the page which the first revert reverts to.

Three revert rule violation onKosovo.User Osli73:

• 1st revert:Reversion of 08:44, 5 August 2006
• 2nd revert:Reversion of 12:30, 5 August 2006
• 3rd revert:Reversion of 14:13, 5 August 2006
• 4th revert:Reversion of 15:26, 5 August 2006

The user is very familiar with the 3RR rule.

Three revert rule violation onJudith_Butler (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Kmaguir1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:[31]
• 1st revert:[32]
• 2nd revert:[33]
• 3rd revert:[34]
• 4th revert:[35]
• 5th revert:[36]
• 6th revert:[37]
• 7th revert:[38]

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here (if applicable) :

• DiffTime

Time report made: 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: User repeatedly inserts poorly worded, unencyclopedic, and disparaging "criticism" section out of apparent (as stated on talk page and numerous project pages) animosity towards biography subject. Also semi-vandalizes other section to contain rambling digressions, and plays shennanigans with NPOV and other spurious and unexplained tags. But the wild reverting to the "criticism" rejected by all other editors is the main thing.

12hWilliam M. Connolley08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onSemitic (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Myriam457 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:oldid

Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):

• 1st revert:[39]
• 2nd revert:[40]
• 3rd revert:[41]
• 4th revert:[42]
• 5th revert:[43]
• 6th revert:[44]

Three revert rule warning diff frombefore this report was filed here:

• [45]

Note that this same user made similar edits toSemitic languages.

ዮም |(Yom) |Talk •contribs •Ethiopia05:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 8 hours byWilliam Connolley.Stifle (talk)21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onGreat_power (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Nobleeagle (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):

• 1st revert:[46]
• 2nd revert:[47]
• 3rd revert:[48]
• 4th revert:[49]
• 5th revert:[50]
• 6th revert:[51]

This user reverts edit after edit back to his original, POV verson.

Time report made: 06:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs please not versionsWilliam M. Connolley08:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go.71.105.97.13308:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

12 hours.AmiDaniel (talk)18:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onGreat_power (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Gerdbrendel (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

Reverts (multiple edits per revert, so only first edit included):

• 1st revert:[52]
• 2nd revert:[53]
• 3rd revert:[54]
• 4th revert:[55]
• 5th revert:[56]

This user reverts edit after edit back to his original, POV verson.

Time report made:71.106.195.507:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This user has insluted me andUser:Nobleeagle several times and is trying to "come back" at me after I reported him to the personal attacks notice board, or "running to the Destapo" as he calls it (I'm German). He has left vicious attacks on theGreat Power talk page and wants to push his OR despite recent consensus among myself and other users (You will find that in the archives on that talk page). Also, I am not reverting to my version as I have never conducted any major revisions on the article. Thank you for understanding. Please see my report on the Personal attack notive board[57].Signature^brendel07:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. You and your buddy have pushed your political views with a vengeance. This is not what Wiki is for. You accept no compromise, but go about degrading Nations which you are not from. When others state Germany or India are not paradise, it is a "personal attack". Well what you all have said about other Nations is the same, so report yourselves if you are honest. You and Nobleeagle consistently revert any changes you do not agree with. "Vicious attacks"? Give me a frakin break. You are hyper-sensitive and making such reports just wastes admin times. Wiki is not here for YOUR personal soapbox and when others disagree you run to the "police". That is flat out unethical. You also have to play by the rules.71.106.195.508:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Diffs please not versionsWilliam M. Connolley08:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There you go.71.105.97.13308:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

12 hrs.AmiDaniel (talk)18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onGreat power (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).71.106.195.5 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log):

• Previous version reverted to:02:34, August 6, 2006
• 1st revert:03:51, August 6, 2006
• 2nd revert:03:42, August 6, 2006
• 3rd revert:03:35, August 6, 2006
• 4th revert:03:31, August 6, 2006

Time report made: 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments: This pattern goes on forFOUR more reverts within an hour's time prior to the 4th revert back that I've included here. Multiple editors have reverted this same IP, and other subnet IPs prior to this one within the past 24 hours suggesting it is the same user. Instead of seeking consensus, this editor chooses to force a revert war upon the article over the issue. Their tit-for-tat above is only because at this point, this user's editors are being considered vandalism (as they are ignoring the consensus) and those reverts do not fall under 3RR. No 3RR warning was given, since the user knows about 3RR having tried to use the system against 2 other editors directly above.

Oh, they were certainly all me. Listen, you are taking sides here, this is clear -- and utterly unfair. I have seeked consensus and others including me have tried to reason with these two. Why their actions are golden, and others are evil, that is quite perplexing. If you follow the discussions they simply hold their line. Is this how Wiki is run now? Who ever can push for their political beliefs hard enough wins? I said multiple times, include all G7 nations. These are the most wealthy seven industrialized nations on Earth. But, no. They slander Italy, but when the tables are turned, they run and say "personal attack". Watch who you back up, you may eventually regret it.71.106.195.508:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

24hWilliam M. Connolley08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but this user is now editing as71.105.97.133 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log) in order to ignore their 24h block.ju66l3r08:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)