Misplaced Pages

monobook

You seem to use the article name for 3RR blocks rather than the history page (which also gives the name). I suppose that is a bit cleaner, should change the tab script then to reflect that? I can also have a history page link generated based on the name (so it can have a link to that too).Voice-of-All 06:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the history-page thing links with "these are the reverts in question" which I feel is confusing... "This is the page history" would be better. But putting the page title into the header is good, I think. Also I often remove the leading ":". William M. Connolley 08:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the title a bit. The ":" is assuming that you warned them, and it goes under the same section. The warning now lets you assume that you din'nt warn him for that instance (like for a repeat offender), so it uses the title. Is there anything else I can clean up?Voice-of-All 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I was looking forward to trying this out, but... I've lost all my buttons. Has something gone wrong? William M. Connolley 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...refresh your browser chache...should be working now.Voice-of-All 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, works now. Couple of comments: rather than the semi-cryptic "was the user warned?" just "would you like it indented" would be better. Um... did it just change somewhat? William M. Connolley 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the prompt box this week. Any other request?Voice-of-All 00:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at the moment... seems to work well. Thanks William M. Connolley 08:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Earth Day

Happy Earth Day! LOL! __earth 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So it is. We don't seem to do it over here... I had a Water Day William M. Connolley 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange...I had an Air Day. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

don't tell me there's a fire day too. __earth 06:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Heart! With our powers combined... EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hi, just to make sure; if I am given a picture free-of-charge, to be used in one, or two Misplaced Pages articles, only, and the original author has the copyright, yet, gives non-exclusive rights to, I--is this the correct tag for it?; PermissionAndFairUse. Thank youZmmz 09:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know, sorry - a message on a copyright page might be best. I'm not sure you can restrict use just to certain pages William M. Connolley 09:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that this picture is unusable for Misplaced Pages, because it does not have a free-enough license (unless, of course, fair use applies).--Stephan Schulz 09:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So, if the owner of the pic has given permission for it to be used in Wiki, which tag should be used then?Zmmz 09:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to find the appropriate copyright-type page and ask there William M. Connolley 09:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to help this user out. I manage copyrights at work. The short answer is: he must have the permission of the image's creator. The only thing that changes this is if the creator attached a "free for non-comercial use" or some other such license to the image or to the page that serves the image. --CTSWyneken 21:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. We're not allowed to use images with permission if it places restrictions on commercial use. Zmmz, you're better off asking on one of the licence discussion pages. SlimVirgin 21:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Over to you... William M. Connolley 21:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

global warming and ice

hey, I was browsing the wikipedia's sci ref desk and . To be exact, its about ice and latent heat. It reminds me of my physics. User:Peter Grey asks "once most of the Earth's ice has melted, we should expect the temperature to increase at a faster rate?". Given what for I know from my undergrad physics, I'd say at least the temperature of the water from the melted ice. But what about of global temperature? Should we expect temperature to increase at a faster rate too? __earth 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed this. Will reply on your talk William M. Connolley 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock and delete page

I request that you unblock my "talk page" and immediately and permanently delete the contents of it. You are free to permanently block me from contributing to Misplaced Pages, as I have no intention of doing so in any case... --JedRothwell 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Killer seems to be on the case here, so I shall leave you alone for the moment William M. Connolley 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking for suggestion about what to do with an edit war

Hi there, I came here to ask you for advice about what to do with a page in the middle of a revert war, as I see you are experienced in dealing with violations of the Three Revert Rule. The page Latino has been the site of many edit conflicts in the past few months, mostly stemming from User:Henrymark from what I've observed. This user does not respond to notices on their talk page nor the talk page of Latino itself.

I attempted to report the user for a violation of the three revert rule in the past, though it was denied as the user appears to make slight changes each time to his/her edits, not making them a simply revert. Lately, another user has stepped into the conflict by the name of Burgas00. Other users have been reverting Henrymark's changes as well.

If you see the Latino history page, it's quite clear from the edit notes that there is a conflict going on. I was hoping you could tell me what should be done in this case. Thanks. Cowman109 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 3RR to me, and blocked accordingly. Slight changes don't matter William M. Connolley 19:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry about that, I guess I got a bit carried away. But, as you say, I was attempting to establish some contact with user henrymark. Anyways I will try to stick to the 3RR, Im still relatively new to wikipedia. By the way, could you tell me how to redirect an article to another one, or change its name? Could you at least direct me to a site which explains all this? Thanks alot!!! --Burgas00 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect is done just by making the first text on a page #REDIRECT new name. Page moving... is too easy. I'll let you find that out yourself :-) William M. Connolley 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick help, William! Cowman109 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! Henrymark is back again starting revert wars, this time clearly writing nonsense on the latino page... Im not going to revert his edits (some other wikipedians are already doing so), could you do something about this. Cheers!!!--Burgas00 22:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All his contributions to a variety of articles are (minor) vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Henrymark This guy should definetly be blocked.

And has been, while I was out... William M. Connolley

Hello! User:Henrymark is at it again on the Latino page. Could you do something about it? Thanks! --Burgas00 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR by 69.119.83.198

The user 69.119.83.198 has reverted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto he has been warned about Three-revert rule. Siddiqui 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm off now, best take this to WP:3RR William M. Connolley 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

content

Dear Dr Connolley,

I have been looking at your wikipedia stuff, and it seems that you are extremely experienced in your field. It also seems (particularly from this talk page) that your new administrator role now occupies a significant part of your time and effort here. Of course it is nice that you have had the recognition in being given the admin tools, but really such tedious tasks as policing 3RR could be done by people with considerably less expertise than yourself. I think it would be a shame if your doing so reduced the time you have for writing content for climatology related pages, because that would seem to be where you can make the best contribution.

Arbitrary username 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thats very kind of you. Happily, the climate-type pages are quite quiet at the moment. We're all gearing ourselves up to putting in the AR4 text when its public, I think... William M. Connolley 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

William, I'm concerned about your response regarding Nygaard. He's trolling on the RS talk page, and is well known for doing this (lots of bizarre questions and objections on talk that people can't understand, much less answer, and very aggressive), and keeps deleting valid material from the guideline and has to be reverted. Now he won't allow the talk page to be archived because he wants to preserve his trolling posts, even those I think it's approaching 90 kb and no one's going to respond to him so the thread's aren't live. Your response was a kind of "plague on both your houses" attitude, and I've seen you do this many times on AN/3RR. There's no point in having the policy if it's not going to be enforced (and it should be enforced regardless of the content issue at stake). If you personally disagree with the policy, then perhaps you could decide to stay away from enforcement issues. I'm really mystified by this. SlimVirgin 01:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Your response was a kind of "plague on both your houses" attitude, and I've seen you do this many times on AN/3RR. I disagree with both halves of that. If both sides have broken 3RR clearly, then I'll block both, of course, and have. As to this case: FM has now blocked GN; I don't know if thats because you contacted him or because he read my post on AN3. The reason I posted there was partly to prompt someone else to do something, if they wanted to, because it seemed to have got forgotten. The reason I didn't block was... as I said. Bear in mind that "obvious trolling" to someone familiar with the case is not to someone who isn't William M. Connolley 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreasonable blocking by Jonathunder

Hi, I am sorry for bothering you, but can you please look here and comment on the matter? Thanks. FunkyFly 19:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy. Is this now a dead or settled issue? William M. Connolley 15:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My block expired, but still the blocking is unreasonable. Ideally I'd like a few comments about the legality of the Jonathunder's activities. FunkyFly 16:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks odd to me. I said so there William M. Connolley 21:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi William, could you please check this out? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 22:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Done by another, now William M. Connolley 08:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Megaman Zero

Hi there. I noticed your interaction with User:Megaman Zero about his 3RR violation. I also noticed that he made an edit while not logged in and then logged-in a minute later and re-signed it; I looked-up his IP (204.218.240.42) and checked its talk page and noticed him remonstrating the IP for an edit; there are many, many warnings on the talk page. Further, the IP belongs to the "DoD Dependents Schools-European Region" in Wiesbaden, Germany and I recall a statement on Zero's page that he went to such a school. I know that the IP might be shared, but also know that it is possible that this is an elaborate game he's playing. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know and give you the chance to look into it. --Moby 12:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - well, is this any problem? If he starts editing from that IP while blocked, thats another matter William M. Connolley 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What most struck me about this was the edit where User:Megaman Zero placed a warning on the talk page of the IP he had proved himself to have edited from; i.e. a game he's playing (assuming the IP was him then, too).

He does appear to have made this edit while blocked. --Moby 06:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well your baseless accusation of me being a vandal is quite disturbing and I take exception to your lack of edvidence to support your claim of I engaging in nefraious conflict. The DODDS school system is (bafflingly) one of the most profilic vandal IPs wikipedia used to have. I used to get blocked daily when I attempted to edit from the IP due to edits constructed by my peers. Only when I took an active part in monitering the vandalism and discussed this substatially with my former mentor and User:Hall Monitor did the nonsense cease. We were finally forced to contact the officials and put an end to it. It appears that not only was it my school that used the network but several across the country.

There's still scants of silliness sneaking in descriminate intervals. But for the most part, the've found someone else to bother with that nonsense. I sometimes feel I'm the only posiitive contributor from that IP, although a few nice edits sneak in every now and then. -Zero 06:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A doubt

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Anonymous_editor

Hello, I feel nice talking to you. I have a doubt. Did you mean me or someone else while giving your comments on 3RR page? However, I would like to add that I readily agree with your comments. --Bhadani 13:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not you, but TU William M. Connolley 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Hanuman Das

Please unblock him - I had blocked him for a week. I had requested on 3RR page. Thanks and also thanks for giving me a new wiki ID of "B". Regards. --Bhadani 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for unblocking me. —Hanuman Das 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

WILLIAM PLEASE NOTE the following information per the 3RR on Hanuman Das (copied from the noticeboard):

I cannot agree with B here. 1 week is completely over the top for a first offence. Further, its not at all clear that this is even 3RR. William M. Connolley 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

NOT A FIRST OFFENCE: Please see HANUMAN DAS is the NEW username of ADITYANATH Hamsacharya dan 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ALSO, in regard to this note:

I'm rather confused about what is going on here, but 1 week is far too long; so I am indeed unblocking William M. Connolley 17:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

William, the edits that I've displayed demonstrate reversions to previous versions of the article or sections of text. As I understand these are the types of reversions considered under 3RR, as also defined by WP:REVERT as well as by Jossi (talk · contribs) who includes the qualification of undoing other people's edits repeatedly in the . It could be that I improperly cited the "previous version reverted to". I would like to get a clear understanding of your logic, if possible, so that I identify the misunderstanding.

1st reversion: clearly a revert to much previous version somewhere in the vicinity of this month old diff 31 March 2006

2nd reversion: undid part of an edit in which a quote was also added a month ago 3 April 2006

3rd reversion: DITTO - this section had been around since almost the beginning of the article 15 March 2006, and in it's mature form here: 19 April 2006

4th reversion: Undid another section that had been in there since almost the beginning of the article: 15 March 2006

5th reversion: SELECTIVELY reverted to his old version, deleting valid, sourced, verifiable, reliable cited text that directly contradicted his weak inclusions 2 May 2006

What you might not immediately see is that Hanuman Das has added almost nothing of value to this article, and on the contrary, since the BEGINNING (see the history for yourself) has vandalized it with his corrosive edits or deletions. His monumental accomplishment was the "conflicting views" section, which carries no academic weight - but it takes someone with experience to see that. Which begs the question why? Well, you might notice that his interest in this article directly corresponded to my interest in the Nath article. He started attacking this article to divert me from adding information to the Nath article - which he has guarded closely like a bulldog for the longest time. You will see that his interest in Yogiraj Gurunath started at about the same time as my interest in the Nath article started . I'm not the only one that feels this way - see contribs of 86.10.229.248 (talk · contribs), Kalagni Nath (talk · contribs), and AgainstFakeClaims (talk · contribs) - other major contributors to this article. Hamsacharya dan 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

you blocked me for violating the 3RR rule

You mention that I should take the issue up in the discussions page which I did before being blocked by you so I dont understand why you blocked me? Please explain!

Sorry. Prev block didn't work (or you wouldn't be able to write that). I've done it properly now. Answered on your talk page William M. Connolley 18:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR at Spring holiday

Your poor judgement regarding this is dually noted. I made only three revisions in 24 hours, what you may have established as a fourth revision was in fact not a reversion (), but rearrangement of wording that had nothing to do with recent arguments, and I actually also elaborated on the information that I once was trying to revert. I also removed some original research (see WP:NOR. In my opinion you are not fit to be an administrator if you cannot investigate your blocks to a extent so as that you can actually verify there was a violation of WP:3RR. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I agree with WMC. The magnitude of the revert is not the issue: a revert is a revert. It's pretty simple: if you do not want to be blocked for violating the 3RR, then do not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. If you are unable to understand what a revert is, as your comment here indicates, then you should consider applying a 1RR rule to yourself to avoid trouble. Nandesuka 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ndru01

Thanks for responding to the 3RR violation by User:Ndru01. Just to let you know that he's now adopted the rather transparent identity of Infoandru01 (see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets/Ndru01). Infoandru01 has continued to change the same page as well as recreating deleted content yet again. Could you extend the block if appropriate? (Although he has also been editing anonymously in any case.) Thanks for your attention --Cedders 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley 18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Left Party (Sweden)

1. The protection was asked by me with the aim of defending the article of the continous erasures (starting with November 2005) by User:Soman. However, owing to some unfortunate cicumstances, the very version promoted by Soman and put into effect with five reverts within lesss than 24 h has now been protected. Comments and help on the issue are more than welcome, anyway.

2. I deny User:Advocatus diaboli being my sock puppet, although we are acquainted. More detailed check would prove that different computers are used by Constanz and the newly registered user. Thus, I do not agree with re-establishing version by the blocked user and then protecting it. Even if I, User:Constanz, had made my fourth and fifth revert (just like Soman did) instead of Advocatus Diaboli, the version protected should have been the last one.I do not see any reason for an admin to revert to the previous previous version before protecting.

As we all know, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. The case concerned, however, does not involve vandalism and the sock puppet claim is unproved; also, this does not justify version changes by admins.--Constanz - Talk 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Frequency probability

Hi William. I'm having a problem at Frequency probability. User:INic seems to think s/he owns the page, and has repeatedly deleted any mention of Bayesianism, the main alternative to frequentism. I think this is a clear violation of NPOV. If you check the page history you can see a string of similar incidents in the past. In my view, User:INic should be warned off, and barred from editing the page if s/he persists. User:JQ

I had a look (& its now on my watchlist), but you have better help than me. Let me know if it goes wrong again William M. Connolley 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll alert you if need be. JQ 23:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

INic is just getting worse. He's doing regular reverts, abusing other editors and so on. In my view, he needs a 24-hour block at a minimum JQ 22:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not close to 3RR. But with Michael Hardy on your side, how can you lose? I've added a warning re personal attacks William M. Connolley 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for calling in the cavalry prematurely.

Response to 3RR warning

Hey, William. Thanks for the note on my talk page. You might want to take a closer look at what was going on, at the edit history. Contrary to what the user may be claiming, I didn't revert a thing, actually. I posted npa warnings, per WP:NPA and WP:PAIN. The user has removed them, but I have not reinserted them. I've followed the prescribed pattern of npa, npa2, and npa3. I'd ask that you reconsider your warning to me. Appreciate your consideration of this. Regards, PKtm 20:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Um. You're right - I only saw npa repeatedly, and missed the 123. Apologies. William M. Connolley 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look, and for the amendments you left on the associated pages. - PKtm 08:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizilbash

Hi. I've been blocked for 3RR, but I actually never broke the 3RR rule, I made only 3 reverts, as allowed by the rules. Please check the history of the page. Regards, Grandmaster 06:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please have a look again? This was the change I introduced:

When it was reverted, I made my first revert.

This was second:

This was third:

I tried to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but without any success (as usual with this person), the major academic sources that I cited were ignored in favor of a very obscure one and the changes reverted. The block has already expired by now, but I just want to clarify the issue. Thanks for your attention to this issue. Regards, Grandmaster 10:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts are , then , , ; the last (first) being a revert by virtue of William M. Connolley 11:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not know the first one qualifies as rv. I’ll be careful next time. Thanks. Grandmaster 15:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I also recommend looking at WP:1RR too - its best to stick well clear of 4R William M. Connolley 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, assuming there are two simultanious revert wars on an article, one over the first paragraph and one over the last and I revert twice for the first paragraph and twice for the last one, will I have violated the 3RR? Telex 16:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

All reverts count. They don't have to be related. See WP:3RR William M. Connolley 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that so, then why does the snitch-smn-for-3RR-vio template over at WP:AN3 ask for the version reveted to - there could be more than one. Telex 16:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC) (these are entirely theoretical questions btw)

Indeed there could be William M. Connolley 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

Show me the content of the deleted edits to Haathi Mere Saathi.

Why? William M. Connolley 08:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Goldenblue

Hello, I can vouch for GB this person is fighting vandals 203.217.48.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) that are using various IPs on the Siamese Fighting Fish article. Please remove the 3RR. If you read the entry above yours at GB talk page you will see I was providing guidance earlier. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Twas only a 3h block, its probably gone by now. But anyway, what he was reverting was not obvious vandalism William M. Connolley 19:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Global warming on FAC

If you didn't realise already, global warming is on FAC. Take a look! Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've voted, guess which way :-) William M. Connolley 08:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, do you have a proposal for solving the "mixed formatting" problem? We're so close to getting this FA... Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My proposal would be to upgrade cite.php to cope, it nearly can already. But failing that... no, I don't know. I'd *like* GW to be FA, and I think it deserves to be, but sadly I think too many people are hung up on the formatting stuff (I find that frustrating); and in the end, I'd rather it failed FA than we ref-ise it, because FA itself isn't terribly important to me. William M. Connolley 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Czech Republic 3RR

Hi. Thanks for placing those blocks. I think they'd've carried on forever given the chance... —Whouk (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The blocks are good in the short term, but there are (slightly) mitigating circumstances: after being involved in trying to stop the war yesterday, I've left a note at at AN3 Aquilina 15:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replied there. William M. Connolley 18:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

190 Proof 3RR

Thanks for the block on User:190_Proof. Nloth 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, User:190_Proof has now been blocked indefinitely. Nloth 07:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming

Hi! I thought I would help you guys out as your were buried in references that needed to be cited, and as the footnote citations are the standard used, i created them. please do not revert them, since they took several hours to complete and doing some other kind of formatting will be a waste of time, since you will eventually have to do exactly what I have done to the article. Thanks! :) Judgesurreal777 08:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. But... you should make yourself aware of the history of all of this. Check out Kyoto protocol which ended up going to arbcomm over the reference format (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, principle 2), and ended up in favour of inline/harvard. Please *don't* revert back to ref style until this is sorted out at talk. This is a controversial change. Note that "are the std" won't do - the cite policy is to leave-as-is if people complain about changing. William M. Connolley 09:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Bright888

User:Bright888, whom you blocked for excessive reverting, is at it again on Japanese_people. In fact, unless I've misunderstood the time stamp for the block, he has somehow evaded the block. I'm not sure what to do about this, but this guy is really persistant and doesn't respond to discussion.Bill 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, will look. Put it on 3RR next time, though William M. Connolley 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure where you want me to put it. Is 3RR one of your headings? I can't read much of your table of contents: it shows up overlaid on the text. Or is there another 3RR page?Bill 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR is WP:3RR. As to this time: you've missread the timestamps. And B has reverted *once* since the block on that page. Come on. William M. Connolley 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I didn't understand the 3RR policy. So its okay after 24 hours to resume doing exactly the same thing, making the same change against consensus? So at this point 3RR is not relevant (unless someone does reverts too often) and the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration or whatever?Bill 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. If B does more than 3R in the next 24h (or indeed, in any 24h period not the same as the last one) then B can be reported/blocked. But not for just 1 more revert. This can be called a "slow revert war" (I should know). You can go for days, weeks, months (argh) as long as you stick to 3R/24. If that happens, and both sides persist, then you need WP:DR (*not* arbcomm as a first resort) William M. Connolley 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Bill 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please check if this is a 3RR. The user added 4 times the same sentence in the same previous version within an hour...  NikoSilver  23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ptmccain again violates 3RR, despite your warning

User:Ptmccain is in violation of WP:3RR by executing his 14th identical revert to the Martin Luther article (the last of which was his 4th within a 24 hour period). Ptmccain has not only repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with official WP policy and engaged in repeated acts of vandalism, but has demonstrated his contempt for WP policy and administration. See here, for example, where he again blanks the page after be directly told not to do so and adds, "Your "Stern Warning" is received, with no little amusement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ptmccain

14th # 12:04, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (move text to a more appropriate location)

13th # 02:50, 10 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)

12th # 17:56, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to more appropriate location)

11th # 12:13, 9 May 2006 (hist) (diff) m Martin Luther (moved text to a more appropriate location)

Please note that the 14th revert was executed less than 24 hours after the 11th identical revert in violation of WP:3RR. Your assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated by at least one and I suspect many Wikipedians. Doright 21:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about you show some modicum of fairness and block SlimVirgin for her violation of 3RR at the Martin Luther page? --P.T. McCain

I don't see it, but if you list them here I'll look William M. Connolley 19:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bios theory and User:Lakinekaki

Hi, I see you have also expressed concern about the content of Bios theory. In Talk:Bios theory I have just listed considerable evidence of an apparent conflict of interest on the part of User:Lakinekaki. I have also enumerated almost one dozen serious objections to the claims made in the very first pargraph of the article itself, which appears to be yet another example of a cranky "theory" masquerading as mainstream science. Even worse, I have presented evidence of a hidden agenda behind the sponsorship of the "research" reported in the article. This appears to be one of the most troubling instances I have come across to date of an apparent attempt to use the WP to deceive our readers.

What to do? ---CH 06:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Archive

Re - Could you please suggest a way that I can respond there? — Instantnood 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're trolling. There was no need to respond there. Let these things go. Don't reply to this William M. Connolley 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Help at WP:SUSPSOCK

Hi there fellow admin. I've seen you comment on WP:SUSPSOCK and would like to ask you for a bit of help over that project. The project is rather new and for now only I'm the only admin reviewing the cases. I'd like to see some more admins participating so now I'm recruiting admins to give me a hand there :-) If you're interested, it'd be nice to put the page on your watchlist and to comment new cases as they appear. Concernig currently open case, if you wish, you can take a look at this one as I'm having problems deciding what to do about it... Of course, if you do not have the time or do not want to participate in the project for any other reason, that's just fine, I'm sure I'll find an interested admin, it's not like we're in shortage of admins :-) --Dijxtra 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll add it to my watchlist and see... William M. Connolley 21:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Username

Errr How can my username violate the rules when it actually happens to be my real name. Butt is a Pakistani name and Reem is Lebanese. I'm from mixed parentage. I find what you said quite upsetting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reem Butt (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk page William M. Connolley 08:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR User:Ruzgar and a question

Well, the 3RR above mine was also for User:Ruzgar on Nationalist_Movement_Party, hence "again". Technically, that was the user's first (reported) 3RRvio, mine was the second. Not that it matters much.

Not entirely unrelated, what, if anything, should a good-faith-assuming Wikipedian think when they see edits like this one. And indeed this one. There's nothing wrong with editing anonymously, but either these sorts of edits defeat the whole point of doing so, or they are falsifications. Curiously, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean, should one accept that they really are by the user claimed? I don't know. If you care/doubt, you can certainly add an unsigned-anon tag; or perhaps more AGF-ish, ask that user on their talk page if it really was them William M. Connolley 16:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Intertropical Convergence Zone

You've removed the information that tells why winds are irregular and light at the ITCZ. "Why" is an important consideration in an article. So my question is, why did you do it? Denni ☯ 21:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply on the talk there William M. Connolley 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi William. I noticed that you blocked User:Deepblue06 for 48 hours yesterday. A few hours ago he evaded it with this edit. Should the block be extended? —Khoikhoi 00:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well in the end I just warned him, since I was in a good mood. William M. Connolley 07:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User:HereToHelp

please see the comments made by the above user here on the community portal talk page Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal. see section "order of GAC and CTC". it appears he is abusing admin privileges in order to win a content dispute, with little or no justification to do so. this s a repeat offence: last time he broke 3RR and received a block from you. he appears to have not learnt his lesson. also please see his edits on the community portal itself: especially the edit summary on this one which appears highly odd behaviour for an admin? Zzzzz 01:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You want admin abuse, not my talk page William M. Connolley 07:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Erdogan Cevher (3RR)

Hi, you said you would block Erdogan_Cevher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but apparently you didn't get around actually performing the block. As he went on reverting twice more after that, he's been reported again and somebody else did the block. Just thought I'd notify you as you seem not to be active right now. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Looks like its fixed now. William M. Connolley 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User: Hganesan

Hi, you blocked user Hganesan for the 3RR rule today. Well, his ban is up and he's already back to reverting everything several people have asked him to discuss before reverting or adding. Case in point, . If you look at all his edits, he is clearly biased and this is further strengthened by his comments in the reverts as well as his discussion page and the discussion pages of the articles he's been littering. He's completely dominated the Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, and Lebron James articles by reverting to his bad edits constantly. In fact, he does it within 10 minutes almost every time. If you look at the Steve Nash page, it's been destroyed. He refuses to discuss anything before editing and if you revert and ask him to discuss, it does nothing, as he readds his edits and proclaims he's right. His edits are totally motivated by POV and sometimes contain blatant POV. The Steve Nash page was good for about 7 hours, while he was temporarily banned. It is now destroyed again. Could you please address this issue. -Henry

Will look William M. Connolley 09:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User: Fungible -- Need advice RE: NPOV and Original Research

Hi Mr. Connolley, Fungible here again with a question. This concerns article: Alan S. Chartock. I edited the article to include links to various newspaper columns written by Mr. Chartock himself. As a lead-in to the links, I state: "In his published newspaper columns and in on-air interviews at WAMC with politicians and public figures, Mr. Chartock represents a decidely political point of view. This point of view can readily be observed in a sampling from his published works posted on his blog at WAMC." Then I posted a series of 6 links to Mr. Chartock's own newspaper columns posted on his blog site.

So anyway, I am getting rv'ed by user, Zotdragon, who claims that this edit represents 'original research' and a 'POV' violation. I responded that all that was stated is that Mr. Chartock's writings are 'decidedly political' (which indeed they are), and further that I don't specifically state WHAT political bent they represent -- merely that they ARE political.

I don't feel such an edit represents either a violation of NPOV nor Original Research because my edit and the links provided at no time represent MY point of view, but rather the point of view of the subject of the actual article, since the links are to his own writings off his own Web log.

Can you give some direction on this matter? Also, let me know if there is any reason why a man's own published work's cannot be linked to in his own Wiki article?

Many thanks. Fungible 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Temporary 3RR block

I notice that yesterday you blocked me for 24 hours due to 3RR. Apparently you did that in response to this: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Hardouin bis (result: 24h). It seems, however, that you didn't notice this: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Hardouin. There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Paris concerning a new infobox template created by User:ThePromenader regarding large French cities. This template is being disputed, and there is currently no definite consensus on this infobox. Yet, User:ThePromenader uploaded his disputed infobox to nine French cities articles (Paris, Lyon, Marseille, etc) and replaced all the infoboxes that have been standing in those articles for more than a year now, despite the fact that the discussion going on at Talk:Paris is not over yet. I removed his new disputed infoboxes from those articles and restored the long-standing infoboxes, asking him to wait for the end of the discussion. This user cleverly accused me of breaking the 3RR on May 15, and I wrote several messages to explain the point at stake (see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Hardouin).

Then the next day (May 16), apparently disapointed that I hadn't been blocked, this user created a new entry on the 3RR notice board called "User:Hardouin bis", implying that I had done something again, although in reality I haven't been editing anything on Misplaced Pages since May 15. I can only be disgusted by that kind of machiavelian use of the 3RR notice board. It is my impression that you replied to this May 16 posting by ThePromenader, without reading the May 15 thread. In any case, I am returning to Misplaced Pages only today, and I see the block is over already, so I guess it doesn't matter much.

As the controversy about the new infobox template created by ThePromenader is not finished, I think it is only logical that we leave for now the infoboxes that have been standing in those articles for more than a year already, and remove ThePromenader's disputed infoboxes until consensus can be found, or arbitration if no consensus is possible. However, if I remove ThePromenader disputed infoboxes and restore the long-standing infoboxes, even if I make it clear that it is only until consensus is reached as I have made it clear before, ThePromenader will no doubt revert me, and if I revert him he will accuse me of breaking the 3RR again. So what can be done then? Hardouin 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked you cos you broke 3RR. Now, you have a dispute situation, and the solution is to talk and reach a solution, and/or use WP:DR. But simply reverting each other is sterile William M. Connolley 22:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:ThePromenader also broke the 3RR rule, mind you. It's all a question of which is first, the egg or the chicken? My question is very simple: shouldn't we leave the long-standing template in the articles and remove for now ThePromenader's disputed template until we reach a solution to the dispute? Hardouin 23:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice TP breaking 3RR. It may be stale by now. I'm not going to get involved in the content, though William M. Connolley 08:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Global warming controversy

Hi - I've convinced our most recent likely skeptic Mrdarklight to discuss his concerns on the talk page Global warming controversy rather than wage a revert war (for now). Would you address his concerns there to explain the situation. I don't feel sufficiently knowledgeable for the task. Thanks, Vsmith 23:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do William M. Connolley 08:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User:24.163.205.147 3RR violation after warning.

I just wanted to bring to your attention that this user made another revert violating the 3RR rule and after being left a warning. I added a record of it, along with some other comments at the appropriate location on the the Administrators' Noticeboard/3RR. I didn't know if you kept tabs on the incident specifically and/or if you feel it appropriate to leave a message for you here regarding this. Lawyer2b 20:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, done William M. Connolley 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for your swift assistance. According to WP:3RR, reverts of edits made by blocked users are not counted toward a violation of the rule. Since he is now blocked, am I, therefore, able to remove the material he added to the article without violating 3RR? Lawyer2b 21:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. That means, edits made *after* a block by block evasion William M. Connolley 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

smythe, blistereno, troceen, et al.

Hello. Regarding the Actuarial Outpost issue, the above sock puppeteer is well known for his vendetta against the site and its administrators due totheir finally taking action against his outright discrimination. Further, the name "Tom Troceen" is the name of the site's administrator, and User:Blisterino or User:Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA's registering of that name should be against any wiki policy that I know of. Thank you. -- Avi 21:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at my edits

I want you look at my edits and tell me if they are acceptable for Azari and for Music of Azarbaijan. ALso please look at Talk:Music of Azarbaijan and the talk page for the former article. Additionally look at my talk page and the project to which I belongs discussion page. User:Grandmaster wants to throw me out claiming I am disruptive. I have been blocked three times for edit warring with him and have been termed incivil just to wwarn you. 72.57.230.179

DivineShadow218 (talk • contribs • count)

Hey...I wouldn't normally have bothered you about this, but I was feeling curious.

The user in question (with whom you have spoken) seems to feel that his block of 24 hours compared to the anon's block of 3 hours was unfair. What was your rationale for blocking the anon for less time? Or, what was your rationale for blocking DivineShadow218 longer? Actually, I'm sorta concerned he went admin-shopping or something; I'm not sure how/where he found me. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

They were both going to get 3h for a first offence. Then I noticed that it wasn't DS's first offence. I don't think getting the same length of time block is reasonable, in this case. William M. Connolley 09:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 18:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

it was my first offence. The other 2 times I got blocked was for moving a page, the seconed one was dropped. Eather way this was my first 3rr offence. --DivineShadow218 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Need some clarification or action....

We've got a user, Simonapro (talk · contribs) on the Freemasonry talk page who seems to be wikilawyering, but completely misunderstanding policies in the process of trying to do so. He believes, for example, that drawing quotes from primary sources is hearsay (though he claims to have read CITE, NOR, and 8W). I don't feel that there is a reason for the current discussion to have gone on quite as long as it has without a resolution save a lack of understanding someplace, so if you could pop over at some point and clarify some policy points about what is and is not acceptable content, and how citations work, I would appreciate it. MSJapan 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dunno... this is beyond me. If Simonapro is a troll, stop feeding him. William M. Connolley 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

referencing

I know you have thoughts on this. What should an ideal referencing system look like in your opinion? Dragons flight 08:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the cite.php thingy could be upgraded into the ideal ref system. I've said this elsewhere, but: there are people who like footnotes, and many who don't; and those who do like them tend to do so cos it keeps the info together. Which is true. But cite.php also does this. All we need is for cite to be configurable to either output or and everyone can be happy (and ditto a slightly modified endlist too). Config would either be on a per-page basis or on a user-vireing basis (though the latter has cache issues?).

The other point is that the system is quick and convenient and does 99% of what you want. I would hate it if people felt put off adding links because the new spiffy better system was too complex to bother with. So the ideal system has to easily upgrade from to new; and to be mixable with it.

William M. Connolley 08:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for input

Howdey. I am looking for some help in the interpratation of certain Misplaced Pages guidelines with regards to the discussion on Talk:Objective_validity_of_astrology. The first general point of contention is whether astrological journals can be considered reliable sources of scientific information. The second is the interpratation of WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. There is divergence on whether the astrological view or the skeptical view shoild be considered the major view. Regards, Jefffire 03:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well I've made a minor edit. I think you need to get a wider community involved. Try: listing as an article WP:RFC. Try adding a note on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pseudoscience perhaps? William M. Connolley 22:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Thank you. Jefffire 13:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg 3RR block

I notice you blocked Jayjg for three hours for 3RR violation on Christian views of Jesus. My reading of the history doesn't show a 3RR, however.

• 18:54, May 21, 2006 Jayjg (remove unsourced POV text filled with inaccuracies, insert fact) Version being reverted to
• 03:47, May 22, 2006 Jayjg m (Reverted edits by Bbagot (talk) to last version by Jayjg) Revert one
• 18:54 May 22, 2006 End of 24 hour period from first edit referenced
• 19:27, May 22, 2006 Jayjg (reworked section; removed off topic information) Revert one within 24 hours (Couldn't revert to the 21st revision within 24 hours, because it has already been 24 hours)
• 02:34, May 23, 2006 Jayjg m (Reverted good faith edits by Bbagot. Don't be discouraged, just read up on WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:C before contributing. Thanks!) Second revert within 24 hours

That doesn't look like a 3RR to me; there aren't even 4 edits within a 24 hour period, much less 4 reverts. I've misblocked on 3RR before; was this just a confusion, or was there another reason for considering it under 3RR? At the moment, I'm inclined to unblock, but of course, would like to hear from you. If you're online, would you let me know on my talk page; if I don't hear back within a half hour or so, I'll take it you're offline, and I'll go ahead an unblock, with the request that he not edit that article again, pending further discussion with you. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

William, there are two notes for you about this on the 3RR page. Jayjg only made three edits within the specified period and so could not have violated 3RR. Would you please undo the block? SlimVirgin 08:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be offline for the moment, so I have unblocked Jayjg per SlimVirgin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As have I; Sjakkalle seems to have beaten me to it, though. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, you're right. Sorry for the block-and-run. I've apologised on Jayjg's talk, now to look at the 3RR page... William M. Connolley 15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

About my block

You blocked me as I broked the 3rr on Makedonska Kamenica municipality article, but what with the others, they are constantly revertin the article, I pointed official data about the flag. Isn't wikipedia here to inform and give coorect data, or it is just the conformistic sugestion of some users? Please support me in the article, cose the flag I posted is the official one.Thanx--Vlatko 10:07, 23 may 2006 (UTC)

You were the only one to break 3RR, hence the only one blocked. As to the content... I'm not expressing an opinion. For 3RR rules, the admins are only there to hold the ring and ensure the rules are followed. Its up to those interested to work out the content. See WP:DR William M. Connolley 22:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR error

Thanks William. Jayjg 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and again apologies William M. Connolley 22:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Being pushed

Mr. Connolley, I am being pushed to revert some pages, as someone tends to remove the legitimate links I provide and the categories that I supply for the article Kosovo. I would appreciate if you consider that before taking an action to block me for 3RR or any similar. I am having a tough time trying to keep some (suspected one) user who keeps distorting the text, and removing my EU sources and citations. Your help would be appreciated, ilir_pz 22:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I very strongly suggest you remain with 3RR, unless you want to get blocked. Otherwise follow WP:DR William M. Connolley 11:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Frequency Probability

User:INic has made three reverts in the last 24 hours on Frequency probability, as well as repeating accusations of vandalism, numerous suggestions that other users (including not only me but Michael Hardy!) are fools who don't know anything about the topic etc. I've tried my best to encourage him to be constructive, as have others, but I don't think there's any point.

Well, sometimes that happens. There is WP:DR for stubborn cases. Im still watching it... William M. Connolley 12:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Request, appreciation

Thanks for all the work you do at WP:AN/3RR on top of being an excellent contributor. Much appreciated. Would you mind taking charge of figuring out when it is reasonable to un-semi-protect Tesla? Thanks. Jkelly 21:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-). OK, will do... though you appreciate that I'm involved in the - ahem - discussions there William M. Connolley 08:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust your judgement; you're in a better position to judge, after all. Jkelly 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

user JQ

Hi William! As you know I'm having a hard time with user JQ at Frequency Probability. I would appreciate some input on how to best handle a situation like this. Thanks. INic 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

JQ is a sensible user who knows what he is talking about. So is Michael Hardy. I suggest you listen to them. William M. Connolley 08:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

According to JQ I'm not allowed to edit the page and he refuses to discuss all the recent changes he has made. Is that OK? INic 09:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like the JQ I know. Are you perhaps misinterpreting him? Perhaps try a sourced direct quote rather than a paraphrase William M. Connolley 09:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This subject easily makes him upset as he is so strongly against it. I'm sure he is very sensible when discussing other issues. You know how it can be when discussing evolution with an otherwise sensible creationist. The feelings against the subject are simply too strong. Thanx for the advice, I'll try that. INic 09:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've responded a bit more on the discussion pageJQ 12:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that Your goal seem to be to mess up this page in a random manner without any other purpose than to make some damage is unhelpful; indeed a violation of WP:NPA. Please try to be more civil or you'll get blocked William M. Connolley 10:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll work harder on my euphemisms in the future. Thank you for your help. INic 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Assuming X has three reverts on an article, then Y adds a {{fact}} and X removes it, has X violated the 3RR? --Telex 10:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Unless for some reason it plausibly counts as rvv. If you're reporting, its best to note when the reverts are reverts, but not of the same thing William M. Connolley 11:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you check Macedonia and tell me if I should bother reporting it, or would it be laughed out? --Telex 11:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he also removed the name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia again, so it's a 3RR either way, right? --Telex 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Proliferation of Demiurges

Now also User:Demiurge001 has been created. --Lambiam 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked, though it seems to have no contribs William M. Connolley 12:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR by Tamzigh on Rathore page

This user has reverted changes three times on this page even after warning. Siddiqui 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So put it on the 3RR page... William M. Connolley 13:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Err, hes allowed three reverts. Should he make another he can be blocked... this is a subject I know a lot about.--Irishpunktom\ 13:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom files 3RR report

Greetings William M. Connolley, sorry to disturb you again but if you would kindly read this 3RR report against me related to my countering vandalistic edits by User:Irishpunktom it would be appreciated. Netscott 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Note how he keeps referring to me as a vandal too. --Irishpunktom\ 16:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, why are you commenting here when from your additional independently natured edit warring today, it seems clear that you're the editor that could use some time to "cool off"? Netscott 18:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding tag 4 times within 24h

Is this a violation of 3RR? I am not sure if Fisenko has broken 3RR at Soviet partisans in Poland or not.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, you go to 3RR board or other admin boards for that, rather than engage in admin picking to block your opponent. I am disapointed to see you raise the 3RR issue when dealing with an obvious good faith disagreement. Besides, adding the tag would take 5 times to qualify for 3 RR. First addition is an edit. Three following readditions would be RRs. OTOH, it only takes 4 removals of just inserted tag to break 3RR. This is all Wikilawyering though ans seeking your opponent blocked should be the last resort. But here, even technically there is no 3 RR vilation and to discuss that you go to public boards, I want to re-emphasize. That said, even 2RR maybe harmful and often wrong. --Irpen 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, putting reports on 3RR is best, but asking for advice is OK too. In this case, yes, the tag is covered, but Irpen is right: its 1 edit and 3 reverts William M. Connolley 21:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And now ? I think he made the 4th revert. --Molobo 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, pls don't troll. --Irpen 21:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not trolling; and if it was, the correct response is don't feed the trolls. F has now broken 3RR. However, since no-one bothered to warn him, he'll probably get off with a warning, if anyone bothers to report this... William M. Connolley 21:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not 'out for blood', but I certainly think he should be warned about this. I don't see a need for block, as Fisenko is not that disruptive (although he is not helpful at all...). As I am involved in the dispute, leave him a warning to be more careful?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course he is unhelpful since he added the sources and raised the issue that happen to contradict the article's biased POV. And so did I at the very same page. I consider myself warned and will warn Fisenko to be more bold in the future and go right into editing instead of trying to talk first and raise the issue of article's overall condition. --Irpen 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Patterns of troubling edits and what to do about them

Hi, can you drop by my user talk page? User:ObsidianOrder and User:Omegatron are very upset about my "outing" Haisch and others. Obsidian is threatening to ArbCom me, and Omegatron seems to think (quite incorrectly) that I posted personal contact information, which is not true at all. I think their real concern might be that I might try to guess their own identities. I am trying to elaborate on the nature of my concerns and to find some more constructive way to discuss the policy issues raised by my concerns and theirs.---CH 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll come and talk William M. Connolley 22:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)