See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive69 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive69

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Administrators' archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Incidents archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
3RR archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Community sanction archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | Backlog

Contents

[edit] User:Judges19 25 reported by User:Yahel Guhan (Result: 31 hours )


User:Judges19 25 appears to be a new editor who has came seemingly to disrupt the page. Also appears to be a single purpose account. Yahel Guhan 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. --slakr\ talk / 05:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sumerophile reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: No action)

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]


Repeat offender, resumed edit warring with 3 other editors almost as soon as the article was unlocked from the last go-round. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

72 hours, albeit reluctantly, given the fact the reporter is equally bad. Moreschi (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hang on a sec, am I on crack? Sumerophile was reverting Ararat arev, that doesn't count towards 3RR! Unblocked ASAP. Moreschi (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What in the world is "Ararat arev"? Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 13:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ararat arev. This guy isn't exactly low-profile. Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
For those following along at home, it helps to know that Moreschi blocked User:68.122.48.117 as a sock of User:Ararat arev. Though this IP has been in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ararat arev forever, I assume the evidence isn't from checkuser, so I imagine that's why the block was only for 72 hours rather than longer. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh, no, the evidence was not from checkuser, the evidence came from WHOIS (see also the LTA page). A longer block of the IPs - I blocked two - would be pointless, Ararat arev seems to have a virtually inexhaustible supply. Moreschi (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:157.228.118.212 reported by User:realtycoon (Result:31 hours, then unblocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: [2]


A short explanation of the incident. Greek POV pushing by 157.228.118.212. Remove reference to Greek and save for the article. This is a controversial issue Realtycoon (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The diffs are wrong, but I looked at the history of the article in question, and it is a violation. Blocked for 31 hours; IP address and no creation blocks. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, this is the first time using this tool. I didn't complete the diffs properly. Thanks for your prompt response. Realtycoon (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

HE is still at it. Using the IP address of 157.228.98.181 Realtycoon (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I was quite busy and I have seen the case just today.
User:Realtycoon has started removing soundly sourced material from the article, for the very first time, on 21st of February here [3]. He did so without any discussion, edit summary and consensus whatsoever. That was his very first edit under this alias. Many of his/her contributions are contagious and involve tactics as POV-tag-warring of well established articles (see [4], [5]). For the specific case he claimed that he can provide sources [6] of some kind but the only thing that he did, so far, is misusing WP processes, gaming the system, being uncivil (shouting insults as "Vandal" [7] etc). The ethno-linguistic attribution is well sourced (as seen in its main article) and widely accepted by the academic community. Please also follow the discussion here User_talk:Bearian#Blocking_of_User:157.228.118.212. ----157.228.98.181 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a controversial issue, there are many sources that I just don't have the time to go into. There is a main article that goes into the details of his ethnicity. Alexander the Great Macedonian King is Correct. But, I think it's best to leave it out of the Disambiguation page! Realtycoon (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is a consensus over this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_language_naming_dispute#Unencyclopedic I'm not the only one who thinks this. I'm just trying to keep the Greek POV out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realtycoon (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you want to get all "Wiki-Lawyer" on me, you are the one who is going around your BAN by using another IP! Realtycoon (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I have a problem here, as this discussion has devolved onto my talk page at User_talk:Bearian#Blocking_of_User:157.228.118.212. What should I do? Bearian (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have decided to unblock, as there was no technical violation of WP:3RR. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What about his block evading? POV pushing? Realtycoon (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, formally, for blocking the IP, for the said reasons. There does, however, seem to be content disputes that may be flaring into edit-warring. To set the record straight, my initial "read" -- that a WP:3RR violation had taken place -- was incorrect. I have left notes on User talk:Realtycoon and User talk:157.228.118.212 with additional information. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC) See also the discussion at User talk:157.228.98.181. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TiconderogaCCB reported by User:Bigdaddy718 (Result: Invalid; filer is an abusive sockpuppet)



  • Diff of 3RR warning: Already blocked 3 times for edit warring [8]

Edit war and user of various IP sockpuppets [9] Also admits to it. [10] Bigdaddy718 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Bigdaddy718 (talk · contribs), the reporter, is blocked as a checkuser-confirmed abusive sockpuppet, rendering this report invalid. I'm closing it without action. MastCell Talk 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Cigaro21 reported by User:Naerii (Result: 24 hours )


Edit warring over the album cover. The IPs there are probably socks of his too. -- Naerii 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ViperNerd reported by User:Thör (Result: various blocks )


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-01-21T03:14:53
  • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, userspace vandalism, and general incivility.

A short explanation of the incident. User committed three reverts under User:ViperNerd, then immediately logged off and used IP 65.188.38.31 to commit the fourth revert. This user was recently blocked for edit warring/3RR, and should probably get a progressively more severe block this time. User is a known sock-puppeteer.

User is logging out to evade 3RR. Sock removes 3RR warning from ViperNerd's talk page. 65.188.38.31 is a static address used by ViperNerd before that user registered an account. edg ☺ ☭ 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do an IP comparison check of User:CobraGeek and User:Blowout 63-17!!! as well as the user who is making this report. Sockpuppetry can be effected by making new accounts as well as using anon IPs. Also, it is my belief that this new user User:Blowout 63-17!!! was created to bait people into a violation of 3RR (this is why I logged out), as this article has been peacefully resolved for a month now, and there have been no recent developments in the story. Then suddenly on the same day, a new account shows up to revert contentious edits, and anon IPs are continuously blanking the page of the Clemson University football recruiting scandal article. If any blocks are handed out, hand them out all around, but some serious disruption of Wiki is taking place here, and it wasn't instigated on my end. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fine. I've blocked 63-17 Blowout!!! (talk · contribs) indefinitely, and will request CU to find out who that was: ViperNerd (talk · contribs) is blocked for 48 hours, if only on account of sheer folly on his behalf. Logging out to edit-war...I mean, really....Moreschi (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: Editor blocked 1 month per ANI discussion )

This user's last 3RR block was for this and another article. The same incivilty and revert warring continues from his last block. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that you're baiting them by blanket reverting their changes across at least two articles, it seems. Takes two to tango. I'm inclined to block either or both of you, if this continues, but neither of you at this particular time. Will see where it goes from there. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not baiting when it's behavior he hasn't learned from. He knows what 3RR is and has been blocked for it several times. He simply doesn't believe the rules apply to him. You've seen his responses on his talk page. He has no interest in working collaboratively. He just believes he's right. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also note his behavior on the WP:ANI board. He removes comments which match up with everything he's been told thus far as unhelpful. This user's attitude defeats collaboration, which is why 3RR is the only venue which effectively makes him stop. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As you say, this may be resolved elsewhere, rendering this particular thread moot. I'm currently reluctant to block under 3RR alone, but this is an ongoing incident and not a done deal, yet. He's got a chance to sink or swim, at this point. Will keep watching. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a reasonable request. I'll leave this alone and see how it goes with the ANI thread. Still, as I've shown with the talk page link, he is liable to become more and more belligerent with every response, all the while reverting under the beilef that 3RR will never apply to him. This is common behavior. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unindent. Yeah, he's not stopping. 5th revert now. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Karaku has been blocked until 20 April for edit warring and incivility, according to the WP:ANI thread, this 3RR case might as well be closed without further study. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shannon Rose reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [11]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [16]

She keeps engaging in an edit war with Orlady (talk · contribs) GreenJoe 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Shannon Rose has been blocked for 24 hours by Nat at 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC). --Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that over the same time period, Orlady also violated 3RR. However, that's now over 24 hours ago. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:65.7.144.194 reported by User:Casliber (Result: 48 hour block)

  • Previous version reverted to: [17]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [24]

Anon IP repeatedly removing material critical of infant formula. Little other activityCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. - the IP isn't dynamic to my knowledge and due to the many reverts which have been carried out. Rudget. 14:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:86.148.189.191 reported by User:MickMacNee (blocked)

Can someone please look at List of Geordies where the IP has made 5 reverts in the last couple of hours. This is a reopening of a long running dispute, with the look of a sock of User:Molag Bal. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

excuse me there is no evidence to prove I am Molag Bal, I am removing useless inaccurate material on that page which is offending me and was added by a banned user who was sockpuppeting, plus you are reverting too so it doesn't help. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP is BT, which is what Molag Bal uses, but then so do I. Does Molag have a history on Geordie stuff like this? Moreschi (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
He's just using it as an excuse to get the upper hand in the edit war! this has been ongoing for months and the user above MickMacNee, is carrying on the reverting methods of the banned user "Gregs the baker" who was also blocked for edit warring on this controversial topic. 86.148.189.191 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I'd forgot, Molag's from Sunderland. Well, regardless of whether this IP is Molag Bal, which I can't prove for certain, he evidently knows Wikipedia policy very well, therefore 5RR is not really on. Blocked 48 hours. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, MB has a number of confirmed socks all making the same arguments on that article. I'm very open to new arguments, but his repetition is just getting tedious. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
One of them amusingly User:Zogonthetyne. MickMacNee (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Can we have the article restored to the version prior to his reverts? MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for enforcing 3RR, not for making decisions on content disputes. The content of the article has to be decided among editors such as yourself. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Irishguy reported by User:Dobs7 (Result: Not blocked)


A short explanation of the incident. Dobs7 (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC) I'm very new to Wikipedia...trying to learn, so please forgive my ignorance on how to do this correctly. Bear with me here. Thanks~

Being a writer, I've tried my hand at coming on here and elaborating on a page I found with a group that I know of called NLT, specifically on V Sevani's page. On there I noticed a performer's name, Lissa Lauria who apparently has been on the V Sevani page for months. I felt that it was of interest, so I added her and links and references realizing that it would be interesting to follow it through from one page to the other. Someone suggested deleting Lissa Lauria. I discovered that I could reply in a very kindly manner and others chimed in. But what has happened since then is that I believe, IrishGuy keeps editing V Sevani's page...many, many times in the past few hours so that Lissa Lauria's name no longer appears there and therefore it would not be necessary to add her to Wikipedia. I've changed it back and explained why I did that, to keep everything the same until the dispute is finalized, but he keeps editing it over and over again. All I wanted was to put it back to the way it was on V Sevani's page, mentioning Lissa Lauria, so that everyone could clearly see why she should be added and not deleted. This is very frustrating to me. I really want to become a valuable part of Wikipedia, but this is turning into an edit war that I want no part of. Please, could someone take care of this? Thank you so much. All of this info. is on Lissa Lauria.Dobs7 (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete report, and no 3RR violation. (Non-admin opinion.) The last 3 edits to the page by Irishguy were at 17:57, 20 March 2008, 18:26, 21 March 2008 and 23:20, 21 March 2008, spanning more than 24 hours. In the first of these 3 edits, Irishguy said in the edit summary, "rm unsourced". This means that the material you want to add, Dobs7, is not supported by a reference to a reliable source. According to the verifiability policy, material has to be supportable by references. The thing to do, then, is to find a reference for the information and add it to the article; then you will probably be able to keep that sentence in. Good luck, and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not blocked, Irishguy was removing unsourced rumors from a BLP. --B (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: 72.0.180.2 reported by Andyvphil (talk) (Result: 31 hours)

Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 72.0.180.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is to a diff, to highlight the material (stating that Jeremiah Wright had been both a US Marine and a Navy "corpsman") 72.0.180.2 repeatedly (8 times, the first not being a revert, obviously) inserted in the article, being reverted out six times by at least two editors. I was unaware of this exchange when I first looked at the article, but I noticed that the (Medical?) "corpsman" business was unsupported by either cite, so I left only the "Marine" business, assuming that since Obama had known Wright for 23 yearsd he was probably right to say Wright was a Marine, while the article writer that said he was in the Navy (and didn't mention his being a Marine) had probably misinterpreted some comment about Wright being aboard ship. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. The point is that 72.etc reverted other editors' deletions seven times.


Again, in diff form highlighting the change 72.etc reverted three times. This had been the subject of a "third opinion" request a month ago, which had gone badly for 72.etc. ([25], and the following three sections or subsections) but I noticed that he had nonetheless restored the weasel-word version that had been rejected then. Also see [26].

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 22:32, 20 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ revert until sorted out")
  2. 01:35, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "revert to consensus format until talk page shows consensus for new format...")
  3. 01:40, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ add wright bio details for improved NPOV")
  4. 03:10, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ add bio farther down (if you say less notable, I say ok, but still put it somewhere)")
  5. 03:33, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 199752278 by Paisan30well how about here then- it will be somewhere because to present Wright one-sided, is a BLP vio. too")
  6. 04:05, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ I think it is least pov in second spot, pls see talk, remember this IS a blp issue")
  7. 04:42, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "/* Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor */ now with 2 cites including one calling wright's statements anti-american. can you possibly accept this?")
  8. 19:41, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 199801193 by Andyvphil (talk)rv BLP vio- andy you ARE NOT ALLOWED to re-add BLP text without using talk")
  9. 21:33, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 199918153 by Andyvphil (talk) you have yet to respond to the BLP vio, which is a new issue")
  10. 21:57, 21 March 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 199924314 by Andyvphil you still are making no response to the current BLP problems on talk- BLP requires conservative editing- reported-")
  • Diff of promise to self-report, claiming BLP exemption from 3RR: here
  • Diff of withdrawal of promise to self-report: [27]

—Andyvphil (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked 31 hours --B (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:HAl reported by User:Kilz (Result: Stale, no action)

A short explanation of the incident. Kilz (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Hal has used and abused the 3RR rule. He now only makes 3 reverts when he knows the other party cant undo his edits. They harm the page. He is removing {{fact}} tags. Evidence of his gaming the system can be found here [28] In which he did 3 reverts then stopped to the same section of the same page. On the same page he and I were banned for edit warning. [29] He knows the rule and is using reverts as an edit tool, only making 3 a day. This is disruptive as long discussions have tried to work this out.[30] [31] and here [32] The 3RR states

The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.

Hal is clearly Gaming the system. Kilz (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC) A 4th revert has been added it is the removal of a part of referenced quote added by me. Kilz (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added information to the this report, e.g. UTC times. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Around the same time, User Kilz made 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, or 4 reverts in just over 25 hours, replacing fact tags:
--Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a suspected sockpuppet report on Kilz with perhaps somewhat ambiguous checkuser results. None of the suspected sockpuppets listed on that report has edited this article since March 6. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Stale, not blocked - the edit war in question has died down for now. It's been nearly a day since the page was edited so there is nothing to prevent with a block. (Obviously, the incident was NOT stale when the report was filed, but it has sat here for 24 hours and if nobody has seen fit to make a block in that time, making one now would not be helpful and would only inflame the situation.)--B (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this strait, Hal can break rules, enforce his edits by reverting, and because the admins didnt do anything that day he gets off the hook? That is insane. What you are doing is insane! Kilz (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not used for punishment. See Blocking policy. As long as the revert wars stop, the job is done as far as this noticeboard is concerned, whether they stop because of a block, because of page protection, in response to a warning, or for some other reason. Sometimes just posting a report here is enough to convince someone to stop. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that HAL will keep doing exactly what he was doing before. Wikipedia will be worse off because of it. Reverting anyone he has a difference of opinion with. He has attacked new users and scared away everyone with a difference of opinion thatn him from the OOXML article. To the point that it is heavily Microsoft biased. Once he scares them away he starts removing their edits. He needs to be shown that there are rules and consequences. But he must have a friend someplace around here, because he is getting away with murder.
You say this page is to stop problems, well there is still going to be a big one on the ooxml page , because no one is willing to do anything about it. Kilz (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If edit warring continues, eventually something will be done about it. When you file a report, try to make it very complete, correct and timely. Note the changes I made to the above report; if that information had been there when the report was originally filed, it's possible something would have been done earlier. Perhaps incomplete or wrongly formatted reports tend to be ignored here, and by the time I fixed it up it was already pretty much stale. If you file another report about the same user here or elsewhere, I'd suggest including a link back to this report and any other relevant reports about the user, to establish ongoing problems. Administrators are volunteers and there is no roster: they pay attention to this noticeboard when they have time, so there's an element of chance involved in how long it takes for something to be addressed. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ViperNerd reported by User:CobraGeek (Result: Deferred to sock investigation)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-01-21T03:14:53
  • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, userspace vandalism, and general incivility.

A short explanation of the incident. User committed three reverts under User:ViperNerd, then immediately logged off and used IP 65.188.38.31 to commit the fourth revert. This user was recently blocked for edit warring/3RR, and should probably get a progressively more severe block this time. User is a known sock-puppeteer.

User is logging out to evade 3RR. Sock removes 3RR warning from ViperNerd's talk page. 65.188.38.31 is a static address used by ViperNerd before that user registered an account. edg ☺ ☭ 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do an IP comparison check of User:CobraGeek and User:Blowout 63-17!!! as well as the user who is making this report. Sockpuppetry can be effected by making new accounts as well as using anon IPs. Also, it is my belief that this new user User:Blowout 63-17!!! was created to bait people into a violation of 3RR (this is why I logged out), as this article has been peacefully resolved for a month now, and there have been no recent developments in the story. Then suddenly on the same day, a new account shows up to revert contentious edits, and anon IPs are continuously blanking the page of the Clemson University football recruiting scandal article. If any blocks are handed out, hand them out all around, but some serious disruption of Wiki is taking place here, and it wasn't instigated on my end. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fine. I've blocked 63-17 Blowout!!! (talk · contribs) indefinitely, and will request CU to find out who that was: ViperNerd (talk · contribs) is blocked for 48 hours, if only on account of sheer folly on his behalf. Logging out to edit-war...I mean, really....Moreschi (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked User:ViperNerd is using another one of his socks [33] to continue to vandalize and harass editors. The sock policy suggests that the block clock should be restarted or extended, would that be appropriate here? He was blocked yesterday, but the block essentially doesn't exist because of his use of these other IPs. Edgarde has already initiated a Sock investigation, and I added the new IP to the list of suspected socks. Any additional help here would be appreciated. --CobraGeek (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing, nothing else to do here. You guys seriously need to get over this nonsense. We have plenty of fans from rival schools that have somehow managed to get along on Wikipedia - the Clemson-USC nonsense is really getting old. --B (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The postscript to this one can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CobraGeek. ViperNerd was quite right: I've blocked CobraGeek for 72 hours. Moreschi (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Changchub reported by User:Sacerdote (Result: Page protected, no block)



Note: [subsequently referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=200214528&oldid=200214018 lead image and information about dual manifestations as vandalisms], and See John Kerry history for evidence of WP:STALK edits following meSacerdote (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a technical violation, as the reverts took place over more than 24 hours. Both parties are relatively new and essentially single issue editors, but the reporter is by far the newer and IMO the reportee is the wronged party here. The reporter is adopting disruptive tactics to promote a POV, for example forking the article and then nominating the original on AfD when it was obvious that a move request would have failed (the move was later proposed and does appear likely to fail). Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have actually protected the aricle due to what seems to be a considerably editing dispute. At this point I don't think it is neccessary to block anyone - including the reported, as the article currently under full protection so both sides will need to work things out on the talk page and perhaps start a mediation request. Signaturebrendel 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kapnisma reported by User:JdeJ (Result: 12 hours)


User User:Kapnisma has been deleting content, somtimes sourced content, from multiple pages regarding the Macedonian minority in Greece. Edit history suggests using Wikipedia to push his own POV, but here reported because of 3RR-violation. JdeJ (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The four reverts above are all removing the same map, which had been added 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC). During the same time period as the above reverts, JdeJ made exactly 3 reverts to re-add the map. I've added UTC times and a version link for a previous version reverted to (i.e. without the map). --Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Blocked 12 hours --B (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Suckitlosers reported by User:Baegis (Result: Blocked for vandalism)

Probable ripened sock of banned editor. Block here and sort out sockpuppeting after disruption is over. Baegis (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked --B (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Marc KJH reported by User:Mikkalai (Result: 6 hours)

(Same reverts in format originally supplied by Mikkalai:)

  • (cur) (last) 22:07, March 22, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (19,970 bytes) (Undid revision 200113033 by 24.18.223.175 (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 22:37, March 22, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (19,970 bytes) (Undid revision 200119230 by Buffer v2 (talk)rv border vandalism) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 21:07, March 23, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (18,775 bytes) (Undid revision 200328186 by Mikkalai (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 21:11, March 23, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (18,775 bytes) (version looks awfully oldish) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 21:15, March 23, 2008 Marc KJH (Talk | contribs | block) (18,775 bytes) (Undid revision 200329690 by Mikkalai (talk)you can't convince me with your awfully oldish version) (rollback | undo)
User:Mikkalai has never contributed to the article, never contributed on talk page with ideas, opinions etc. The versions are almost the same, but he reverted to an awfully oldish version. Marc KJH (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether Mikkalai has contributed to the article in the past or not isn't a justification to edit war to get your preferred version, but I would also point out that this appears to be a relatively new account, and no warning was given about the 3 revert rule prior to the report here. --Onorem♠Dil 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The account is new but this is not a new user. It is very well familiar with wikipedia rules. and ways. `'Míkka>t 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Marc KJH has demonstrated awareness of the 3RR rule by posting a 3RR warning to Mikkalai's talk page one minute after the user's last revert. (I provided the diff above). --Coppertwig (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)I've reformatted the diffs supplied by Mikkalai and added the previous version reverted to and the diff of 3RR warning. During approximately the same 24-hour period, Mikkalai has done 3 reverts, plus a series of edits between 17:46 and 17:53 23 March (UTC) which do not appear to me to be reverts although it's always hard to be completely sure. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked – for a period of 6 hours. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The page has been protected for 3 days by Ryan Postlethwaite due to editwarring. There's now activity on the talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Diplomacy rule reported by User:Fireproeng (Result:24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [36]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [37]

Revert of opinion, after removal by several editors. No discussion. Fireproeng (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Open-and-shut case. 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait! – I think maybe you opened and shut it a little fast. Have a look at the dates. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The first 3 reverts were about a week ago. The last 3 reverts span just over a 24-hour period. (I inserted the UTC times into the above list of diffs.) --Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The block notice at User talk:Diplomacy rule cites "edit warring", not 3RR, so perhaps Heimstern Läufer was aware of the dates after all. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer has replied on the user's talk page, concluding "...So I think it's not unreasonable to continue the block, but will have no objection if it is lifted, either." There are only about 4 hours left in the 24-hour block, anyway. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User AnishShah19 for 3RR violation Reported by IAF (Result: No action)

Please look into the 3RR violation on article Indian religions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Anishshah19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) on 23rd March. Indian_Air_Force (IAF)

Though User:Anishshah19 and User:IAF have been edit-warring on this article,
  • Anishshah19 does not have four edits within a 24-hour period so I believe there is no 3RR violation
  • Since these two are the only participants in the edit war, it is likely that any sanctions issued would have to fall on both parties
  • There was no 3RR warning issued, at least no recent warning
  • User:IAF has a lengthy block record for edit-warring, disruption and sock puppetry. One of the articles for which he was cited was this very article, Indian religions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(I modified the links and wording in the first line of this report.) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the report example at the bottom of this page to provide complete diffs. Rudget. 15:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The most recent post to the article talk page is Feb. 21. I've posted messages at Anishshah19's and IAF's talk pages encouraging them to use the article talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tgcowbell reported by PerfectPolly (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tgcowbell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) at article Jodie Kidd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Keeps reverting article Jodie Kidd to introduce POV violations and remove well established facts that do not suit him or her. It looks as though he/she has been going it for days PerfectPolly (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No 3RR violation, but editwarring by Tgcowbell. (non-admin opinion.) Tgcowbell made only two groups of edits in the last couple of days. A group of consecutive edits by one editor usually count as one edit for 3RR. Tgcowbell has been making edits to the article with zero explanation in either the edit summary or on the article talk page, and at least 3 other editors have been reverting Tgcowbell's edits, also with little or no explanation. The talk page has not been edited since December! I encourage all editors to use the talk page, explain the reasons behind your edits, and try to come to an agreement on a version of the article. Please discuss on the talk page instead of editwarring. If Tgcowbell's edits are opposed by several other editors then Tgcowbell probably should not be continuing to make those edits -- though without explanations of the reasons for the edits it's hard to tell! By the way, this is a BLP. Note that editors can be blocked for editwarring even if the 3RR rule is not violated. Thank you for bringing this situation to this noticeboard, PerfectPolly, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a warning on Tgcowbell's talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ScienceApologist reported by User:The Tutor (Result: Page protected for 1 week)


SA has not helped with this page but has constantly reverted attempts to make it more coincidental with the citations. He also appears to have found my edit of a speller on a far distant page and reverted that see [for example]. The Tutor (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of who's right and who's wrong. You have been involved in the edit war as well; neither of you has accomplished anything by reverting the other. Therefore, I'll protect Mpemba effect for 1 week. Please resolve your conflict on the talk page, and remember WP:COOL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pawatch reported by User:Montco (Result: Blocked for 3 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [38]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [43]

User has continued to edit State Rep. page to the Representatives official biography located at [44] One other user has done the same thing in the past and another user has deleted without explanation information in the article. Montco (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverse Report of User Montco by Pawatch! Montco has intentionally reverted content of this public servant with a grammatically and factually incorrect biography. This information can cause undue harm and libel upon said party.

He further tried to intimidate me as a new user in the talk section and attempted to use his superior knowledge of the Wikipedia environment to continue his proliferation of opinion and intimidation.

Please research Montco to see if he has had volatile conversations with other Wiki users. In our limited research we have noticed that other users have asked, “why are you being so mean”, Montco replied, “ because I can be.” I do not think Wiki should support such deviant behavior and disrespect of its users.

I asked that Montco be blocked from altering this page in the future.

Comment The material in the original version was sourced properly from major local news outlets. Your (Pawatch's) version does not follow WP:NPOV or WP:MOS guidelines. Please familiarize yourself with these policies and guidelines. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Pawatch is Blocked – for a period of 3 hours. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.129.197.15 reported by User:Tool2Die4 (Result: No action)

New information added. New list of diffs, and see also list of reverts by Tool2Die4 further below.

*Previous version reverted to: [45]

IP is engaged in edit-warring. Is unable to bring an unbiased view to the situation. Crux of the matter is the use of Mythical National Championship in the opening paragraph. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What you have listed as the "1st revert" is not a revert; that is the IP's 1st edit. Although the IP has made 4 edits, he/she has made only 3 reverts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I put a new list of diffs near the top of this report, striking out the links provided by Tool2Die4. 70.129.197.15 did 5 edits between 13:55 and 20:26 on 24 March. All 5 edits produced identically the same version of the article, therefore the last 4 are reverts. I've also provided a list of reverts by Tool2Die4, below. I count 4 definite reverts by Tool2Die4 as well. Tool2Die4 also did an edit at 16:57 on the same date (between the 2nd and 3rd reverts below) which could be argued to be a revert as well, since it causes the word "Mythical" to appear again in the article, and all of 70.129.197.15's edits have the effect of hiding the word "Mythical" inside a piped link so the word doesn't display, in the phrase Mythical National Championship. Neither editor is making use of the talk page at all. There isn't a single post to the talk page since November 2007! Editors should discuss the reasons for their edits on the article talk page and make an effort to work out a mutually acceptable solution there. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by Tool2Die4:

Previous version reverted to: 13:15, 24 March 2008

If I'm interpreting this right, Tool2Die4 has self-reverted at 11:08, 25 March 2008 in order to avoid being in violation of 3RR. Thank you for that gesture, Tool2Die4. However, I still don't see any effort by either party to explain and discuss the reasons for their edits on the article talk page. You need to try to reach a consensus. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Traditional unionist reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 100 hours )


Edit warring seemingly based on the misapprehension that because someone who was born in the Republic of Ireland now lives in Northern Ireland they magically become Northern Irish, or even British based on the discussion on the talk page. One Night In Hackney303 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and congratulations to One Night In Hackney for filling out the 3RR report correctly and completely -- the first one I've seen, I think! I'm not kidding: at least the last ten previous reports have been missing information. Thanks to One Night In Hackney, Traditional unionist and Belacqua Shuah for using the article talk page to discuss the content issue. Traditional unionist has been informed of the existence of the 3RR rule from in least one previous situation. The four reverts listed above are all adding the word "Northern" to the first sentence of the article. Belacqua Shuah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has also removed the word "Northern" from the first sentence five times in the period 17:27 to 20:47 24 March, counting as at least four reverts. (Non-admin opinion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
He's also been blocked three times for 3RR violations, hence me not bothering with a warning diff. One Night In Hackney303 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nor did you grace me with telling me you;d filed this in. I'm delighted at your courtesy. My apologies for breaking the barrier. I confess that I wasn't counting. Again, apologies.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 100 hours, more for the fact that this edit-war was so lame than anything else. Moreschi (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Belaquah Shuah had apparently been unaware of the 3R rule and has apologized. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Gni (Result: No violation)


After recently learning of the 3RR, I've carefully avoided revert warring on this contentious article. Unfortunately, Boodlesthecat, who himself has been banned for violating 3RR (and thus knows the rule very well) almost reflexively reverts changes I make. In this case, his reversions came despite his admission that he didn't even read the case I carefully laid out on the discussion page. He responded, "I'm sorry, your post is too long to really read through for such a minor issue...," and yet reverted anyway. (All this after having declined my attempt to seek help from the mediation cabal.) Gni (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In the last 72 hours Boodlesthecat has only made 3 edits altogether. It takes four reverts to formally violate 3RR, so I don't see a violation here. It has been argued at WP:COIN that User:Gni is serving as an advocate for CAMERA, that he has edited from their office, and that this violates the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. For details see the WP:COIN report here. User:Gni has already been blocked twice in March alone for edit-warring on this article. One of the blocks was for evading the original block with an IP account. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Since this issue is still waiting for definitive action at WP:COIN, and I often participate there, I'd prefer if a different admin would close this 3RR issue one way or the other. My comment above was intended to ensure that the possible COI would come to the attention of the closer. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I find no actual violation by User:Boodlesthecat. Closed as such. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Regine Velasquez (Result: Not a 3RR violation)

Watch the Regine Velasquez fanatic vandalize the page of Regine Velasquez by citing biased information. Please block the user because he has posted false article information and has re-edited the page to favor Velasquez fans. See Regine Velasquez page for more information. The Evil Spartan 21:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No violation - It might be appropriate to remove the personal attacks (although the person being attacked is not overly upset about them). If it becomes an issue requiring administrative attention, there are other appropriate fora, but nobody has violated the 3RR. --B (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Matthew reported by User:Lawrence Cohen (Result: Page protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: [50]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: Veteran user, he is aware of 3rr.

Edit warring to remove an image. Not exempted in any way from 3rr. Lawrence § t/e 20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support block. Also removing a template which he claimed was against consensus; actually, there was a consensus of an admin and two other users. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the 3RR policy exempts users removing clear violations of the non-free content policy, which this is. Matthew (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See this. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
And like a BLP issue, saying it is does not make it so--the standing of that NFCC claim is heavily disputed, apparently, so you should have stopped and disengaged immediately after #3. Especially as multiple people apparently disagree with you. No one gets free passes in this place anymore. Lawrence § t/e 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not blocked. Removing non-free content vios is excempt from 3RR. Majorly (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Undid your tag of no block--consider that multiple users in that talk page are actively disputing whether the exemption applies there. Like BLP, contested = subject to review. Consider how Crum375 was blocked for violating 3rr on the Mantanmoreland RFAR--while claiming BLP. Just a note, I have no stake in this specific case and haven't even watched a Doctor Who in about 16 years. Lawrence § t/e 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I suggest that there is a major, major COI going on here. Matthew and Majorly are good friends and Majorly has failed to respond to the two comments that removing non-free content is only an exemption in clear cases. I am shocked that anybody could behave in the way that Majorly just has. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The page is locked. There's nothing productive about blocking anyone here. Additionally I've removed TreasuryTag's rollback right for clear abuse of it for edit warring. Majorly (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to undo your actions--you are deeply involved with and linked with Matthew, and should not use your administrative status on anything to do with him. Bringing this up on the existing ANI thread. Lawrence § t/e 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Majorly, it's horribly inappropriate for you to be the one to resolve this. However, I concur that because the page has been protected, no block is appropriate - that is our standard practice. If Majorly had been the one to protect the page, ok, that's an issue, but he wasn't. Additionally, Lerdthenerd and TreasuryTag are cautioned not to use the rollback button in a dispute and if it happens again, they may be de-rollbacked. Reading ANI, I see that Majorly has already removed it, again, a really bad idea. --B (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jimnogood reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 31 hours )


After repeatedly adding highly POV commentary, the editor persists in moving a section of the chronology to a misleading section. One Night In Hackney303 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Moreschi (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:IrishLass0128 reported by User:Radiohead12 (Result: Not a violation, checkuser filed)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: Veteran user, he is aware of 3rr.

User had a past problem with this user, and now has vandalized their talk page after they have left. Radiohead12 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Editor5435 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: See the previous version reverted to listed beside each revert, except for the last few which share the same previous version.

*1st revert: 05:18, 23 March 2008

Editor5435 continues to threaten to revert any edit that he doesn't like, labeling such edits "vandalism" [51]. See ANI]. Ronz (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No Ronz, I asked Spot to join the consensus on establishing a new article structure before making any significant edits. Why do you continue to spread these lies about me?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
1) There is no consensus on new structure. 2) My edit didn't change the structure, it improved the content and references. Spot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Spot, you aren't exactly telling the truth here, numerous editors support restructuring the article, its all there for everyone to read in the discussion page.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, it's all there to read: you and kevin have been talking about restructuring. You are welcome to talk all you want and when you are ready to restructure the content of the article, by all means do so, it might be an improvement. But 1) I certainly didn't join this "consensus", which means there wasn't one, and 2) there's no reason to hold off on fixing the content until the structure is decided. Spot (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Spot, you conveniently left out Owlmonkey, so the consensus is 3 against 2, sorry, you lose!--Editor5435 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
1) Owlmonkey is not part of any consensus in your restructuring discussion. He introduced the history section a while ago, which I totally approve of and I actually tried to do before but it was reverted. He made some suggestions about subsections in an attempt to reduce this articles overemphasis of Iterated Systems, patents, and history. That was weeks ago, before the current discussion started. 2) The notion of a consensus of 3 against 2 is absurd. 3) Anyone's plans to restructure are not a valid argument against improving the content. Spot (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Spot, once again your version of events defies reality. Owlmonkey created the heading New Organization under which he suggested "method", "history", "patents", and "comparison with alternatives" sections. Rather than reduce information on Iterated Systems there was discussion about created new sections to add more information giving the article an improved balance.--Editor5435 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There should also be an entry for Spot's violations. Putting a notice for Editor5435's violations up without doing the same for spot's shows a bias in the application of justice. -- Which is even more dangerous than the violations. Kevin Baastalk 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Spot was the one doing the edit-warring. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Spot is at 3 reverts by my count, so I didn't report him. He's been warned. Meanwhile, Editor5435 is at 12 reverts. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That only suggest to me that your bias is so deep that it's affecting your ability to count. Kevin Baastalk 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Kevin Baastalk 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please follow WP:TALK. There are 12 diffs above. Each is a revert by Editor5435. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Amazing, Ronz included all of my editing activities under patents and other areas in the same complaint about my reverts of Spot's edits. Ronz is engaged in an all out assault against me, what exactly is going on here?--Editor5435 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ronz open your eyes, I cleaned up the patent section and other areas yesterday, what are you talking about? You clearly are not acting in good faith here!--Editor5435 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
@Tool2Die4, can you explain yourself? I made 3 reverts, which is allowed. Editor5435 has made many more which is not. Editor5435 reverted first. How do you conclude that it was me and not him? Have you read the relevant discussion page? Spot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Spot, you made controversial edits, the correct procedure is to revert to the previous version while disagreements are resolved in the discussion page.--Editor5435 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Spot, note that WP:3RR says "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique." You can still be blocked for editwarring even if you don't exceed 3R in 24h. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
We already discussed this edit on the discussion page. You and Kevin were unable to provide any references to dispute it, so I put it in. You make controversial edits all the time without any discussion. Spot (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You must have me confused with someone else, Spot. I don't believe I've ever edited that article or its talk page. If an edit is really a good one and is really supported by a consensus of the editors involved in the discussion, then it will get onto the page without any one editor having to revert it in a large number of times. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to Editor5435's immediately previous comment, I'm not sure how your text got inbetween. The problem is that Editor5435 has been editing uncivilly since he got here. He does not wait for consensus. He reverts without restraint and harasses anyone who stands in his way. The only way to get this article back to a reasonable place (where I had it a couple months ago before he showed up, imperfect but not an advert at least) is to block him. I didn't realize the 3RR rule prohibited what I did, and i'll steer further clear of it now that I do, but he is in vastly greater violation of it, and many others (see the multiple incident reports). Admins, I beg you, how much suffering must pass before you step in? Spot (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ronz, you are ignoring the fact Spot was acting independently of a consensus to improve the structure of the fractal compression article. His edit attempts only make the original problem worse. I asked him repeatably to settle this matter on the discussion page before making significant edits to the article. He ignored these requests and refused to cooperate with other editors who are all working on a solution.--Editor5435 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right (and that goes for spot, as well) Kevin Baastalk 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to improve the structure. The structure isn't the problem, the content and references are the problem, and that's what my edit addressed. A draft of it was vetted on the discussion page before I put it into the article. I didn't change the structure anyway. Spot (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've modified the list of diffs to try to make it conform to the required format for these reports. I may be adding information soon about reverts by other users on the same page.19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC) --Coppertwig (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ronz has not edited the page for about 21 hours, and I have the impression that Ronz' edits were generally not reverts. Spot has edited 4 times recently. The last three of these are clearly reverts, but the first one has edit summary "replace first section with draft text from talk page" and therefore does not seem to me to be a revert. So no other editor seems to have violated 3RR recently on that page. (non-admin opinion.) --Coppertwig (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The main point is that there is an edit war going on at fractal compression. Reverts only serve to inflame a situation. Leave the article alone and discuss first. That goes for everyone involved. --clpo13(talk) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say that there "was" an edit war. I'm happy to see that since 18:31 (nearly 9 hours ago) there have been zero edits to the article, and about 40 edits to the talk page, much of which seem to be constructive discussion. Keep it up, keep cool, and try to reach an agreement. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well that's good. I just saw a bunch of reverts and didn't think to look at the time. --clpo13(talk) 03:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
There's now a lot of editing going on on the page, but there is also talk page discussion, and as far as I can tell the editing is reasonably collaborative and I don't see any obvious 3RR violations at the moment. Congratulations to all concerned for making an effort to work together. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexwoods reported by Littlebutterfly (Result: )

Request blocking for this user Alexwoods. He violated the 3RR rules today on two pages.

His 4 reverts on the Tibet page: revert 4 revert 3 revert 2 revert 1


He ignored my discussion on the talk page and instead stated his will to start a revert war: “I am going to keep reverting him, but it would be nice if others would help out. Alexwoods (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC).” See under subsection littlebutterfly here

He also reverted 4 times on the People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951) revert 4, revert 3, revert2, revert 1

I engaged him on his talk page with good faith, see subsection fresh start. His response here was less than friendly: “I undid your changes, and I'll continue to do so.”

I invite you to investigate my edits. All I did was to add sourced material to provide more information. And when I removed two paragraphs I started a discussion on the talk page here.

He should be blocked for his violations. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the Tibet article, as it is protected a block is not necessary in that case - blocks are preventative, not punative.
As for the PLA operations page, Littlebutterfly you have also breached 3RR.
That is technically a reversion because you removed a fairly important piece of information. But even if one does not accept that is a revert, there were then four subsequent reversions.
You were warned about edit-warring on the Tibet article by ZimZalaBim only yesterday, so you should have known better yourself. So both you and Alex should be blocked for your edit-warring. Or you can withdraw this report and talk things over with Alex. You should also inform an editor if you are making a 3RR report against them. John Smith's (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I don't deny making those edits. I've been trying to get Littlebutterfly to stop axeing important parts of Tibet articles, and nothing has been working, short of reverting his edits. I welcome admin attention to this problem and would be happy to discuss further. Alexwoods (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Revert wars waste time and energy. I was forced into two by him. His reverts on the “People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet” page is particularly troubling. He was removing material sourced to western scholars. There is no justification for their removal. I am relatively new here; I did not know that he needs to be informed. Violators of the 3RR rule should be blocked to prevent further revert wars. However, I have no intention of continuing one and if Alexwoods stop his aggressive editing and engage in discussion, punishment would be unnecessary. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As I explained on your talk page, no one can be forced into revert wars. You choose to participate of your own free will.
You may not have been editing long, but your account was registered back in the summer of 2007 when you made two edits. You had ample time to read Wikipedia rules. Moreover if you know what the 3 revert rule is such that you can report a user to the administrators' board you should know it would apply to yourself as well. John Smith's (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I did approach him with conciliatory gesture, see start fresh. His response here was less than friendly: “I undid your changes, and I'll continue to do so.” Alexwoods was determined to push his edits. His lack of good faith and threat of a revert war should count. I feel like I am being scrutinized here by you. And you are acting like an apologist for the aggressor. As far as I can see you said nothing about his violations. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You both have violated 3RR. You both are edit warring. You both are being uncivil. You both must cease your current behavior. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was uncivil in the past. Unfortunately, the root problem remains. Littlebutterfly is making irrelevant, incendiary changes to Tibet articles, and when I remove them, he reverts me immediately. See these changes. They amount to random insertions of pro-PRC statements into the article. However because Littlebutterfly has brought the 3RR violation claim, I am reduced to making comments about these edits on the talk page, while they get to continue making the article worse. I take responsibility for my past violation of this rule, and apologize for it, and I am trying to not violate it again, but someone other than me has got to tell Littlebutterfly to stop making these unconstructive edits. Alexwoods (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to reach a consensus with Alexwoods just a few hours ago. I agreed that the material I recently added “should all be moved elsewhere.” I am very disappointed to find that he is attacking me here without mentioning my Cooperation. I've only added material sourced to western scholars. They are not on Beijing’s payroll and their statements are less sensational than those from the Tibetans. Alexwoods finds them pro-PRC only because they don’t work for him.
I apologize for my violation of the 3RR rule. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Editor5435 reported by User:Spot (Result: Blocked, 30 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: see below.

Editor5435 reverts all my edits even when they have important material with stellar references. He has been disrupting work here for weeks, previous incidents include 3RR, ANI, blocked. I only had to search back a few hours to find the five reverts above, if you look further i am sure you will find many more. If you want to see more, I will take the time to find them, busy now and this detailed reporting takes me forever. Spot (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot was not following the agreed upon page layout, he attempted to move the History section which I restored to its original position. I also moved some items to fit within the new page structure and cleaned up wording in the Features section.--Editor5435 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Diff of a personal attack by Editor5435 in response to this report. Spot (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much edit warring going on here, although I'm not an expert on the content behind the areas of contribution, and it may well be that I'm missing the reverts behind the large volumes of edits made by the subject of this report. Nevertheless, per my comments at User talk:Editor5435#You have been blocked from editing, there is obviously disruption ensuing from this editor's contributions. To that end, I've Blocked – for a period of 30 hours. Hopefully this remedies the disruption. Regards, Anthøny 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:GordonUS reported by User:TimVickers (Result: 24 hours)

The user is trying to add disputed material about racial differences based on a book published in 1962, see discussion on talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Spot reported by User:Jakespalding (Result:No violation)

  • Previous version reverted to: see below.

It appears Spot has recently been in an edit war with Editor5435 who received a 30 hour ban, during with time Spot has violated the 3RR rule by making multiple significant edits to the fractal compression article.--Jakespalding (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No violation. - Seven edits in a row by Spot, with no intervening edits by others. counts as *at most* one revert. Look at the history. You need four reverts to show a violation. There seems to be a clash of philosophies described on the Talk page; it would be good to develop a Talk page consensus. Though Spot's work is well-intentioned, he can't expect to figure it out all on his own. It might be good to ask for comments on the talk page of a related WikiProject to bring in more editors. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No thanks, it looks like a handful, I was just reporting what I saw Spot doing as no different than Editor5435, both removing each others contributions but resulting in two different actions. I would rather not be involved any further.--Jakespalding (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
COMMENT: Jakespalding has only two edits prior to this, both on the same article Spot is accused of violating 3RR on. The timing of this notice, and the venom involved with mentioning Editor5435's recent block, seem to be worth noting. Redrocket (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti reported by User:TheFEARgod (Result: 24 hours Re-opened: Result: 48 hours)


User avoids using the talk page. Best explanation for his revert is "I served as a Blue Beret in the Turkish Army, let me know a few details better than you."[52] quite unique. Also, sorry for making 3RR by my side--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

user began discussion. at last--TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Result - User blocked for 24 hours. Please continue to use discussion resolve content disputes. ScarianCall me Pat 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Further violation: (non-admin opinion) After coming off the block, the user has editwarred further, again violating 3RR:

Previous version partially reverted to by first revert: 17:27, 26 March 2008

The user is reverting changes by 3 other editors. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti has been blocked for 48 hours by Scarian. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Amagase reported by User:Appletrees (Result: Reporter blocked)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-03-26T15:26:44. Well, I thought Amagase's first revert happened today, so the warning is premature, but he did revert 4th times without the discussion.

A short explanation of the incident.

A Japanese fraudster, Shinichi Fujimura has been addressed on the page for over 2 years because his case is notable example of fraud. However, a Japanese editor Amagase removed it without discussion or consensus[53], so another editor reverted it. Then, he left a comment as implying to include Korean cases for revenge because the another editor and I are Korean editors[54], and really did it[55]. After reverting the article, he falsely accused me of making "personal attack" because I pointed out that (rv by Amagase The case is frequently mentioned in news articles when it comes to "fraud". You tries to evade the subject with other cases) [56]. I let his new addition with adjusting order as a compromise, because the examples suit the definition of fraud as well. However, he accused me of removing all of his edit, which is totally untrue and reverted again. Regardless of my warning and suggestion, he made the 4th revert and shows continuous uncivil behaviors, so I submit this report.

This is a debate on the talk page Talk:Fraud#Shinichi_Fujimura--Appletrees (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I, user Amagase (talk) strongly oppose this unreasonable proposal. The following is the reason. First as I said in the note page, Fujimura's case should be mentioned in the Scientific misconduct, in which Fujimura was already mentioned. Note that there are no examples of scientific frauds were shown in the article Fraud. Appletrees disagreed my removal and reverted my edit. So I compromised and added the examples of scientific frauds which are obviously more notable than Fujimura's. Then he reverted this edits again. He wants to add just Fujimura's case. Why? This is the second reason. In his edit records, you can see almost all of his activities in here Wikiepdia are aimed to degrade Japan-related articles and add Korea nationalistic descriptions in articles. This attitude is against the English Wikipedia's policies, isn't it? --Amagase (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You're speaking totally untrue. Did I ever erase your new addition about Korean case even though that is motivated from your revenge?[57] And you still are making further personal attacks on me "here" as calling me aiming to degrade Japan related articles and nationalistic Korean. In my point of view, you, Amagase looks as such because you "intentionaly" erased all Korean mentions from articles related to ancient history of Japan which links to Korea and also has been a target of 2channel's long term abuses such as doing meat/sockpuppetries in English/Japanese/Korean and other Wikipedia. I also notice Amagase's misconduct and gave him enough time to be cool, but his threat and assaultive comments are getting escalating and really intolerable with his blatant disregard on 3RR rule. --Appletrees (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a clear evidence for what Amagase (talk · contribs)'s misconduct goes on.

OK, Go on this absurd argument till the last. I'm certain that you should be removed from the Wikiepdia community. --Amagase (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[58]

I'm so convinced that the privilege of editing Wikipedia is too much for this highly uncivil editor who does not respect not only Wiki rules, but also people on the other side. I think he should learn a suitable lesson. --Appletrees (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My opinion about your edit attitude is not a personal attack but a reasonable and response to you. In various articles you remove "Japanese names of subjects" and add "exaggerated Korean influence over the Japan-related subjects" and oppose to name articles in Japanese. You became the source of troubles in many articles. Some of these arguments seem to be agitated by some idiots from 2ch, but I think the fundamental problem is your unfair edits. I don't know the procedure yet, but I will propose the arbitration about your attitude. --Amagase (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What a threat, you're keeping that absurd attitude. Your aforementioned comments are clearly good examples of "personal attacks" and your "wishful thinking". If you keeping such behaviros, you should face the consequence. Moreover, you violated 3RR rule, that's why you're summoned here, so don't escalate your misconduct further. As for 2channel, I saw the exactly same plan written on 2channel as your declaration, so I wonder you, making personal attacks here and there have that right? Are you saying that over 20 identifiable Japanese editors are "some idiots"? That is very impressive. Your edits are followed to what I recently edited and my edits are restoration from blanking without rationale. The problem is you intentionally minimize or totally erase the Korean influence on the mentioned articles which are considered disruptive approach to resolve content disputes. You should deal with your "attitude" and violation first. --Appletrees (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation. - #2 is a new edit and not a revert. Please take discussions to talk pages. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    With all due respect, I think it is a clear 3RR violation and civility issue. According to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Moreover, I'm getting a threat by the editor. Why is he free of any sanction?--Appletrees (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Because you haven't proven that #2 is a revert. As far as I can see it's the first-time addition of new names. If you can find us an older version which that was a revert to (and the link above doesn't give us that) then we can deal with it. Otherwise, there are three reverts and not four, and the 3RR isn't broken.
    I am just about to head off so hopefully another admin will be able to check this one out if and when Appletrees adds the required information. (Hint: Put "review requested" or something similar in the section header so that an admin will spot it.) Stifle (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Review needed: The addition in question is disputed between 3 editors, so I think #2 fits to the definition of revert to the original page if I interpret 3RR rule properly. In addition to that, I wanted admins to take a look at his uncivil comments along with this report. --Appletrees (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Review, confirming no violation. I can see no way that #2 can be perceived as a revert, since it adds new entries to the list that were never there before. The third and fourth edits marked as reverts don't seem to be removing anything from the list, they are just changing the order. So this is not technically a 3RR violation (there is only ONE single revert within the 24 hours, by my calculation, his first removal of Fujimura, and you need to show FOUR reverts to make your case). The original motivation of Amagase, that scientific frauds weren't prime examples suitable for listing as examples in the Fraud article, is a defensible view, and that's why he said he was removing Fujimura. (He even left a Talk comment at the time of this removal). His adding of other scientific examples seems reasonable, though you must be perceiving a revenge element in the fact he added a Korean scientist to balance out the original Japanese scientist that you added. There does seem to be a lot of incivil talk going on, and I hope we see less of that in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the request. Well, the report is rather motivated by Amagase's highly uncivil threats and bad assumption, so I re-acknowledge of the 3RR rule here. (maybe ANI is a better place to report his rudeness) His first revert did happen several days ago without rationale for his removal of the part. After his revert was challenged today, then he declared to contestants to accept either his inclusion of other cases or exclusion of Fujimura. In my point of view, that is a very unwise way to cooperate with others who disagree with his edit because he can't own the article and demand others to follow his own rule. In the ongoing dispute, I got several inappropriate threats by him, and he even lied about my edit. So, I want admins at least give him a proper warning. If Amagase keeps to degrade my dignity and fact, he should deal with the consequence anyhow. --Appletrees (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing this (on Appletree's request), I come to the conclusion that the disruption in this affair has been entirely on his own, Appletree's, side. I'm blocking Appletree for 31h for disruptive editing and harassment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
To enable archiving: Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Beleg Strongbow reported by User:Paul Barlow (Result: Declined)

  • Previous version reverted to: [59]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [64]

Beleg_Strongbow insists on adding repeated creationist assertion about the unreliability of "Darwinistic" assumptions. He has also repeatedly added and readded the text of the Babel astory in Genesis. His reversions are slightly complex, since he often uses several edits to restore his text, and there are some slight variations. There were several reversions before the first one I listed. The last was after my warning. Paul B (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Declined. - the version you say is the "previous version reverted to" is the same version that is left after the 4th revert. What you say is the 1st revert is not therefore proven to be a revert. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This is untrue. I explained that 'his reversions are slightly complex, since he often uses several edits to restore his text, and there are some slight variations.'. My understanding is that they don't need to be exctly the same. The only significant difference is that he is no longer attempting reinsert biblical text, but the reversion to the disputed sentences remains near-identical. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Svetovid reported by User:87.97.109.54 (Result: Declined)

Revertwarring on Hedvig Malina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by user Svetovid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Not a "classical" 3RR violation, but a "classical" 3RR avooinding reverwar(ing)


User:Svetovid is still revertwarring on the Hedvig Malina article, despite that he has been blocked 2x for doing that. Since the last block, he carefully avoids to break the 3RR, so it became a long drawn out battle and - intrestingly - an IP is just joined Svetovid's side[65]. I know, this is not a 3RR violation, but noone is reacting on the WP:ANI or other forums, despite that he's negligating general consensus, and cleary and obviously HAS a "negative attitude" against the article, since it was created. He also tried to delete the page as "not notable", [66], despite that by a simple google test, this claim can be denied. Oh yeah, look at THIS. Pls, do something, this situation can not be tolerable furthermore. Thanks, --87.97.109.54 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the report example at the bottom of this page to provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Changchub reported by User:Oestrik (Result: declined)


The reversions have been made without explaining comment and for the purpose of suppressing referenced information about a religious official having recognised the biographical subject as a Karmapa in 1992. My efforts to talk it through have been responded to with personalisations not addressing the subject matter. The reference seems sound as it is a statement by the person concerned in his own words.-User:Oestrik

  • Note – It appears that the reporter is an alleged sockpuppet --slakr\ talk / 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mesplay reported by User:Cirt (Result: Declined)


Disruptive edits at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, after warnings in edit summaries by myself and RelHistBuff (talk · contribs), and also warnings on the user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment by Mesplay (talk · contribs) - At all times I'll utterly disregard you and the ethic of defeating participation which we all can see that you're a byword for - suggests the user is determined to continue to be disruptive at the WP:TFA/R page, disregarding multiple warnings. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It means what it says, not what you want to call it. See, recording an oppose vote on a TFA request and giving reasons for it isn't 'disruptive'. Neither is attempting to exploit 3RR to do the utmost to have that vote suppressed. The words 'girlish' and 'petulant' are more befitting the latter.Mesplay (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Declined. I hate to have to say it, but you really aren't doing yourselves any favours by removing his vote as well as his nomination. If the nomination is out of order you should remove it, sure, but removing his votes as well wasn't fair. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Note The most recent two additions of the disputed nomination were commented out, so could not under any circumstance be construed as being disruptive - at most a storing of the nomination so it could be added when one of the existing noms finished. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with this decision by Stifle (talk · contribs) - the most recent edits by this user to WP:TFA/R seem to be okay, though the method of commenting out an entire nomination on the page is a bit unorthodox/odd. And as that particular part of the edit-warring has ceased, no need for a block as it's not intended as a punitive measure. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Beleg Strongbow reported by User:WLU (Result: 24 hours)

Beleg Strongbow (talk · contribs) appears to be a strong believer in creationism, or at least a critic of evolution. S/he has consistently added POV criticisms of any statements that are founded on conventional evolutionary theory, disguised as 'disclaimers' in the form of an unreferenced discussion of the 'Darwinistic assumptions' on which scientific hypotheses have been based. WLU (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Has also contributed anonymously as 192.136.15.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). WLU (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Already blocked. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Peter Grey & User:Paul Barlow reported by User:Beleg Strongbow (Result: Declined, reporter blocked)


  • 1st revert: [67] - Paul Barlow
  • 2nd revert: [68] - Peter Grey
  • 3rd revert: [69] - Peter Grey
  • 4rth revert: [70] - Paul Barlow
  • 5th revert: [71] - Peter Grey
  • 6th revert: [72] - Peter Grey
  • 7th revert: [73] - Paul Barlow
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [74] - Paul Barlow (1st warning)
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [75] - Peter Grey
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [76] - Paul Barlow (2nd warning)

There are essentially three sections (namely, Archaic hominids, Modern humans and Gestural theory) within the Origin_of_language article that rely heavily (if not completely) upon the validity of the Theories of Evolution, yet the status in which I found those sections present time spans and conjectures as fact. For the benefit of clarity, I have added to those sections an acknowledgement statement, pointing out their reliance upon Evolution. The users Peter Grey and Paul Barlow (as well as a couple others) conspired and teamed together to revert my insertions out of the article many times. I attempted to discuss the matter with them within our own as well as the main article's talk pages, but they refused to come to an agreed compromise with me and continue to revert my insertions out of the article. Please assist in the resolution process. Thank you.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

since, despite their Christian names, Peter & Paul aren't socks of one another, I fail to see how their reverts can be cumulated for a 3rr report. It is true that Peter rolled back four times, and he did so explicitly as reverting vandalism. I leave it to your judgement if "Beleg Strongbow"'s edit qualifies as such: see here for context: if not a vandal, Beleg in any case is in urgent need of mentoring towards an understanding of basic Wikipedia principles. dab (𒁳) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours. - Beleg Strongbow is insistent on adding disclaimers into articles on evolution, which we don't do. As such the reverters are exempt as they were reverting vandalism. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lmusielak reported by User:Gwynand (Result: Closed amicably)


Basically a minor content dispute at first between violator and User:Baseball Bugs. I did not get involved other than noticing violators reasoning wasn't sound. I reverted violator once, then he quickly switched back. I reverted once more, warned him (as this was already 3rd revert). He then reverted a fourth time. Gwynand (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • New comment by reporter - Violator appears to be engaging me in reasonable discussion in understanding his error. He may be somewhat new, so I think this should be taken into consideration regarding any block he may or may not receive, to avoid being bitey. Thanks Gwynand (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Since the time of the 3RR warning was only one minute before the last revert, Lmusielak might not have actually seen it. If it appears to observers that the reverting has actually stopped, I suggest this report might be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree from reporter - As soon as the 4th revert hit, I knew I wasn't going to engage in an edit war and it appeared the violator was going to keep the page his way no matter what, so I quickly reported. Looks like he is at least now attempting to discuss the dispute and he has not attempted another revert after a different editor reverted the violator. Gwynand (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – Seems like everyone's happy to be nice and amicable with this, so no blocks and tea all around :) Stifle (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.111.126.200 reported by User:Scarpy (Result: No violation)


Anon address repeatedly adding unsourced and POV statements. Scarpy (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The policy states you can't revert more than 3 times. For this to a be a violation, you need to provide a 4th diff (if there is one). Gwynand (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
On top of that, the warning should be on the user's talk page (who reads edit summaries during a revert war?) and should be given before reporting someone. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen people blocked for just for reverting three times before, without a warning. But, either way, from the IP's talk page it looks like s/he is also vandalizing other articles. You guys do try to stop that, right? -- Scarpy (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The user has been given several vandalism warnings; if he/she continues please make a listing at WP:AIV. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Question why was I tagged for a 3RR in this situation? I thought that removing vandalism didn't count for that.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, was it because the IP used the phrase "undo vandalism" in the edit summery that you thought I was the vandal?Coffeepusher (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Note – No, as Gwynand and I explained on your talk page, reverting vandalism is only exempt from 3RR to the extent that it is simple and obvious vandalism. Please contact me on my talk page if you require more information on this. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:LaGrandefr reported by User:Josuechan (Result:protected)

LaGrandefr repeatedly added a misleading map of Ming China to the article despite strong objection from other editors. Josuechan (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's not the only one edit warring, Pericles of Athens is also doing so. Instead of blocking both, I've protected the article for 24 hours: just long enough to force a cooldown, I hope. If it continues, it will probably be blocks instead. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Miyokan reported by User:Hillock65 (Result: 72 hours )

This user is inserting a forked content from other articles. There is a consensus of three editors on the discussion page of the article against that move. However, this user, initially refused to discuss the issue and only started discussion after his 3rd revert. He has been invited to take part in the discussion and chose to continue revert wars. The discussion that started has not lead to anything positive as he has just made his 4th revert in the last 24 hours. Administrators' intervention is welcome. Hillock65 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Result - Blocked for 72 hours. ScarianCall me Pat 02:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:88.111.71.65 reported by User:Gusworld (Result: Not a 3RR violation, blocked for other reasons)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [80]

There has been an ongoing dispute over the relevance and formatting of some information in this article. While discussion had produced some consensus on useful information to include, this user has consistently ignored discussion and reverted to previous versions, behaving in a way suggesting article ownership. Gusworld (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There are only three reverts listed above, and the version reverted to is also not given. On the other hand, the IP editor has made plenty of personal attacks, and is dissenting from what appears to be a Talk consensus. She was blocked on 20 March for vandalism. A recent Talk comment by the IP is: Ok love whatever your imput was not wanted or correct anyway i did most of the page and will keep doing so, you no0 nothing about the nolans so please keep out of it :) regards... EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a 3RR violation, but I'm blocking this IP address for a week for personal attacks. --B (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Proxy User reported by User:Kelly (Result: Article protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: [81]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [86]

Reverting to BLP vios on Dawn Wells. Kelly hi! 03:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has protected the article. As there is nothing for a preventative block to accomplish, I am closing this request. --B (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Navnløs reported by User:Twsx (Result: Reported user and edit warring IPs blocked for 24 hours)


Continuous reverts over a formatting issue (whether to use commas or line-breaks in genre lists of musical artist infoboxes). Also going on at the same time on Megadeth and Symphony X, although with 3 reverts on both probably not technically violating the 3RR rule. User has been blocked three times over this issue and been proven of using a sockpuppet to tag-team-fight for his point of view. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 15:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It may not be relevant, but can we determine who the IPs may be? Rudget. 15:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision: The 3 IPs that are edit warring with the reported user (156.34.142.110, 142.166.250.98, 156.34.211.193) all come from the same location (St. John, New Brunswick) and at least one of them is in contact with another editor who has been involved in the ongoing dispute regarding formatting [87]. I am confident enough that they are either the same individual or a group of individuals acting in a coordinated manner to edit war and that they understand 3RR, to block them all for edit warring. That said the reported user has a history of edit warring, and there is no justification for them to deal with the current situation through further edit warring, I have therefore blocked them for 24 hours also. TigerShark (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Having some knowledge of the history of this dispute, I believe that a RFCU may be useful to identify whether sockpuppetry is continuing to play a part. TigerShark (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dauernd reported by User:Blast Ulna (Result: 24h block)

  • Previous version reverted to: [88]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [104]

User:Dauernd seems to disagree that Mingrelians are ethnically related to Georgians. He persists in reverting well-sourced teext to this effect and replacing it with his source, another Wikipedia article. Several users (including me) have reverted him (a lot), but he won't stop. Now, I don't know that Mingrelians are or are not Georgians, but the article should be protected to the well-sourced version until or unless User:Dauernd can come up with his own reliable sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dauernd blocked 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:BD.Harvest reported by User:JoshuaZ (Result: 31 hours, checkuser filed)

  • Previous version reverted to: [105]


BD.Harvest and Wmdoti were engaging in a massive revert war on MassResistance Wmdoti and BD both went over 3RR. Wmdoti stopped after a 3RR warning, BD apparently has not. There were actually a total of 10 reversions by BD which I'm not bothering to include all here because formating these take time and 7 is well over 3 anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked 31 hours - checkuser filed to see if the other party edit warring is a sock. --B (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser came back positive. Perhaps this shows a need for additional blocks. It does indicate that Bcamenker (talk · contribs) and BD.Harvest (talk · contribs) should be viewed as one editor for 3RR purposes. (Meatpuppetry in the same office is a possibility). We might keep this report open for a day or two to see if any of the not-yet-blocked editors start reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Update: two IPs have been altering the MassResistance article recently, and they seem to be on the other side of the fence regarding this issue. Their edits also seem (to me) highly POV and inappropriate. Semi-protection ought to be considered. The original suspects complained of in the 3RR report have not resumed. (I've been using Corvus comix's edits as the reference point for neutrality, apologies for not doing a really thorough study). EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The IPs have one edit apiece. I'm not overly inclined to sprotect it, but if you, JoshuaZ, or another admin who is looking at the article feels it should be, I have no strong opinion one way or another. As for Bcamenker, I'm not inclined to block him because he hasn't edited in 3 days - a preventative block wouldn't solve anything. I will block the sock, though, and leave a message that edit warring with socks is not acceptable. --B (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Corvus (who has been busy fixing the POVs) doesn't think semi-protection is needed, so I'm OK with closing this report as is. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:88.110.183.132 reported by User:Gusworld (Result: 24 hours)


IP user continues to revert article to older version, claims article ownership and refuses to discuss changes. User was blocked for personal attacks under IP 88.111.71.65 Gusworld (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Reportee is a new user, and all reverts are before the warning posted on the user's talk page. Although I've added information to the report, I haven't verified whether the diffs are reverts or not (although they seem to be, at a glance). Gusworld seems (at a glance) to have done one "major edit", then three reverts. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Similarity to other account: User:88.111.71.65 was also reported by Gusworld for repeatedly reverting the same article (above on this noticeboard). That user was blocked for a week for personal attacks at 14:49, 29 March 2008. The reportee here, User:88.111.71.65 first edit was 00:45, 30 March 2008, also reverting The Nolans, and similar pattern of editing. Diff of 3RR warning to :88.111.71.65 was at 22:26, 28 March 2008 --Coppertwig (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The prose style and article interests show this IP is a new incarnation of 88.111.71.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who is working off a one-week block from the 3RR case above. Since this looks to be block evasion, I suggest that 88.110.183.132 (talk · contribs) be blocked for two weeks and that the existing block on the other IP be extended to match. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
24 hours, and as a sidenote, the IP's version of the article has serious formatting problems and isn't really useful as a starting point. After reviewing it, I've also s-protected it for 2 weeks. --B (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joseph A. Spadaro reported by User:Meachly (Result: indef blocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: [107]

This user was the creator of this article. He has consistently reverted my attempts to improve the article, despite appropriatte explainations on the comment fields and the talk page. Recently he has placed abuse edit comments and threatening messages on my talk page. Meachly (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing as moot, Joseph A. Spadaro has been indefblocked for civility reasons. --B (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Joseph A. Spadaro reported by User:Snowfire51 (Result: indef blocked)

Editor created article, and has been warned multiple times about WP:3RR. You can tell from his edit summaries and comments he is taking ownership of the article and extremely uncivil to anyone else trying to edit it, as seen here [108] [109] [110]. Redrocket (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing as moot. Joseph A. Spadaro has been indef blocked for civility reasons. --B (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:72.252.11.52 reported by User:Nick Graves (Result: 24 hours)

User of this IP has repeatedly reverted the article to include a non-notable person in the list, despite objections by three different editors and requests to discuss and reach consensus (the above are just the latest 4 instances). Nick Graves (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

24 hours --B (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:90.2.27.86 reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 24 hours)


Removes sourced material on the band of WP:VAND with an edit summary: POV pushing. I warned him. Kuban Cossack 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

24 hours, borderline vandalism. --B (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Socalsharkzfan reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: 24 hours)

Note that while the edit in question is done by an IP, the user admits to it being his in a following revert.

This user is insistent on adding original research to the article relating to who the person might be. While I have gotten him to respnd to discussion, it doesn't help if he reverts in the interim. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

24 hours. --B (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:90.203.247.196 reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 24h)

Editor keeps reverting to an earlier version removing sources that have been added. One Night In Hackney303 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you had included this link of your report in your message on my talk page. Fortunately, I was able to find it so I could speak for myself on the matter.

As I said on my talk page in response to your warning, you have been guilty of the same thing you accuse me of, in tandem with another user (witness the snide discussion between the two on their talk pages in relation to this matter).

Not only that, but your (and your friend's) edits were wholesale in nature and neither of you bothered to explain why your reverted ALL of my edits, never mind an explanation for even one of the changes I had made.

I have reverted the article to the state it was in when I made my initial edits, and tried to reinstate the edits of another editor, 'John', also. I do hope I don't have to encounter another of your friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.247.196 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You were reverting back to your version, including the removal of sources that contradicted it. One Night In Hackney303 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

24 hours. Khoikhoi 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Erxnmedia reported by User:CreazySuit (Result: 31h)


Erxnmedia insists on placing a fringe view that United States supplied satellite intelligence to Iran (a controversial claim supported by only one unnamed source) in the lead of the article, and presenting it as if it's a universally accepted fact. I removed this claim from the lead providing a rational, but he keeps reverting me with no edit summery claiming that I am a vandal, and calling my edits "vandalism" which is very frustrating. CreazySuit (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

31 hours. Khoikhoi 23:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:129.116.50.150 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: 24 hours)


  • 1st revert: 2:02 (please note this was from same system IP - U of Texas)
  • 2nd revert: 6:21
  • 3rd revert: 14:46
  • 4th revert: 22:51
  • Diff of 3RR warning: 15:00

Someone using the above two IPs located at the University of Texas continues to revert my removal of what is basically unsourced, tangential trivia which was added to the Lizzie Borden article. Other editors at this article have been trying to contain the runaway addition of non-relevant trivia. There has been a hidden message in the article at each section of the Borden in culture section requesting no further additions be made without bringing it up on the discussion page (this is due to the high percentage of trivia additions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for 24 hours. Khoikhoi 03:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.108.82.109 reported by User:Hello Control (Result: 24 hour block )

  • Diff of 3RR warning: IP clearly is aware of 3RR (see this edit) even if s/he can't count.

The talk page of Cassie (singer) was riddled with WP:BLP violations, which were redacted in December. The IP in question keeps reverting to an earlier version of the page, not only replacing the BLP violations, but removing edits from after the redaction took place. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alexwoods reported by User:Littlebutterfly (Result: 12 hours, both parties)

Alexwoods violated the 3RR rules today on People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet page.

His 4 reverts: revert 4 revert 3

revert 2

revert 1

The material he has removed repeatedly came from western scholars. This material is a part of the text that explains the 1959 uprising and therefore highly relevant. This is the second time he is being reported in about a week. --Littlebutterfly (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly justified this change and I welcome admin investigation into this issue. Please note the comments that the reporting editor has made on the talk page for this article. Alexwoods (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Both User:Alexwoods and User:Littlebutterfly are edit warring on this article and both have broken the three-revert-rule. This is not the first incidence in recent days where these users have over-used reversion. Consequently, both users are blocked for 12 hours. CIreland (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:206.125.176.3 reported by User:BSI (Result: Protected, no block)

Reintrucing content that was removed from the article after long dicussions on the articles talk page and on WP:CAR. Those contents mainly consist of original research and don't adhere to WP:NPOV to the most part. constantly reverting over various other editors. BSI (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not blocked - Article has been protected by another admin, no longer a need for a preventative block. --B (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nolans2007 reported by User:Gusworld (Result: 48 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [112]


Sourced version being reverted to version tagged for cleanup. Nolans2007 has previous recent blocks under two IP addresses re problems with same article [118][119]; second incident resulted in semi-protection. User is working in conjunction with Gazer97, who has also reverted three times [120][121][122]; 3RR warning for Gazer97 [123]

Sorry but there isn't a vio here. Both parties did not break 3RR.non-admin comment CWii(Talk|Contribs) 23:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked 48 hours, this user has previously been blocked as 88.110.183.132 (talk · contribs) and is still under a block as 88.111.71.65 (talk · contribs). --B (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cooljuno411 reported by User:Undead_warrior (Result: no vio)

  • Previous version reverted to: [124]


  • Iffy first revert, iffy because it might not be a full 24 hour inclusion: [125]
  • 1st revert: [126]
  • 2nd revert: [127]
  • 3rd revert: [128]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [129]

The user is intent upon adding his page to a template. The page is currently in AfD and will more than likely be deleted. The user keeps re-adding his information/page to the template despite it being taken off. Undeath (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no 3RR violation but there is an edit war. Since it is all dependent on the outcome of the AfD discussion, I've protected the template for the remaining duration of the AfD (approximately) when the appropriate verion of the template will be beyond debate. CIreland (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:B Nambiar reported by User:Anwar saadat (Result: 24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [130]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [136]

In the past 48 hours, this editor has begun revert warring in several other articles too - Phallus, Nair, Bharatiya Janata Party‎, Saint Thomas Christians‎, Kshatriya‎, Animal worship‎, Criticism of Hinduism, Demographics of India‎ - abusing special wiki tools‎, giving misleading edit summaries, regardless of citations. Anwar (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:76.90.172.217 reported by User:Bpeps (Result: 31 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [137]


and three other reverts within the last 24 hours (History).

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [147]

Background

Initially I presumed it was just an April Fools prank. All the editor does is replace a correct year of birth 1963 with an incorrect one 1973. Apparently, as it isn't "obvious" vandalism editor shouldn't revert the vandalism. I have been warned for reverting the "innocuous" vandalism because I reverted it twice. I don't see it as innocuous and I don't think it's much of a joke either. . BpEps - t@lk 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked 31 hours for fact vandalism - a quick google shows that 1963 is the correct answer. --B (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User 70.109.223.188 is changing pages and deleting Wikipedia References (not a 3RR issue)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have communicated with the unregistered user 70.109.223.188 about a change that he made to a new Wikipedia page that I had created, specifically, New York City and Other States Nightlife Legislations. This user deleted a perfectly good "See also" section saying in his/her edit (→See also: already linked, removed per WP:GTL). As I read this policy, I see that it can be left in as an editor's discretion. This unregistered user then re-did his/her edit and on the edit explanation said this: (can you provide a reason for going against a guideline here?). I had already explained the following, which is on his/her talk page:

+++ If you'll reread the link that you provided in your edit, it says the following:

6.2 See also
Shortcuts:
WP:ALSO
WP:SEEALSO
The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist. Links are presented in a bulleted list.

Did you catch that? "...ultimately a matter of editorial judgment" so why are you taking the links out of New York City and Other States Nightlife Legislations? You don't understand what I'm doing as, this is a brand new page.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Like most things around here, nothing is set in stone, and the above is a general guideline. If the article already has an internal link it is not necessary in the see also section unless there is some good reason. Also, whether I created that page or I am a registered user is not really rlevant, is it? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't start going around again removing links in See also, unless the repetition is particular egregious (e.g. something repeated many times in the text, or in the lead where the link is easy to find). It really is a matter of editorial judgment, not a "one size fits all" thing. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I am using editorial judgement per the guideline. Is there a specific edit you don't agree with? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I already gave you the reason to your question: "can you provide a reason for going against a guideline here?" Why are you edit warring on this matter. It says "Editorial Judgment". I want someone to quickly go on the page, NOT look for links in the article but just go down quickly to the See also section as, I suspect many people will be interested in this page, which is why I created it in the first place!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC) +++

I then noticed that this same person seemed to be following my editing and changed other pages as well, deleting perfectly good links, etc. I am requesting that when you examine the user's page, and his/her edit history, etc. that you will protect the pages that I'm working on from this person who seems to behave unprofessionally. Please note that the Talk:New York City and Other States Nightlife Legislations is currently under Wikipedia mediation cabal. I look forward to your response on my talk page, thank you.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

MurderWatcher1, I suggest that you use one or more of the article talk pages (or a user talk page) to respectfully discuss with 70.109.223.188 the reasons for and against having the "see also" links, and try to come to an agreement you can both accept. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing - this is not a 3RR issue. If you can't resolve the issue on talk pages and require assistance, the dispute resolution process is available to you or you could ask for a third opinion. This noticeboard is only for reporting violations of the three revert rule. --B (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] User:Bardcom reported by User:Tb (Result: Not blocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: [148]


User:Bardcomm makes many edits, across many pages, seeking always to eliminate use of the term "British Isles," apparently because of a desire to express his POV about the inclusion of Ireland in that name. He attempted to bully editors of Episcopal Church in the United States, and has reverted four separate editors recently in his desire to express his POV. After warning him, he proceeded to make the edit again, even marking it "minor". Tb (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Not blocked for now. He seems to be talking it out and so blocking would be counterproductive. If, from this time forward, he reverts again or continues making that edit on other articles without consensus, please reopen this request. --B (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cheeser1 reported by User:Netkinetic (Result: Not blocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: [149]

This editor persists in making sockpuppet accusations against an anonomous editor that removed one comment on a talkpage without substantive evidence. Note: This editor has been previously disciplined for the same aggregious behaviour. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Not blocked - this is silly - Cheeser1, he has been notified of the investigation and until abusive use of sockpuppets is proven, he can remove the tag. I don't know anything about the background here, but unless you are abusing it by violating 3RR or some such thing, there is no prohibition on editing while logged out. --B (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, he is being abusive. Netkinetic is actively stalking me, as noted at the SSP case. He is using this IP, which he clearly admitted to having used, to essentially back himself up and corroborate his own opinion that I am a "bad editor" or something. I have not been "previously disciplined" for "aggregious[sic] beahviour" - I was blocked (and unblocked) for minor 3RR in a content dispute that was settled amicably. Confirmed sockpuppetry notices are not subject to WP:BLANKING. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Until you added the notice, he had exactly two edits from the IP in the last month. Unless I'm missing something, it isn't even in question that the IP was him logged out. Putting the notice there does nothing except for create another dispute. If he is stalking you, that's obviously a serious issue, but two edits while logged out are not sockpuppetry unless they are used for 3RR or something, particularly if it's obviously him. --B (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      (ec) For the record, there was no warning (required for 3RR complaint), that "4th revert" is no such revert, but an entirely different message, and that (to be frank), B is in no position to make vague statements absolving anyone of their responsibilities concerning SP abuse (this is AN/3RR, not SSP). That, and to elaborate on my first response, B neglected to note that I explicitly assumed good faith and suggested that if this was log-out-itis, that Netkinetic simply leave the note there, because it has been confirmed by accidental "I made this edit" admission. Because it is confirmed, it is not subject to WP:BLANKING and cannot be removed. Additional comment after edit conflict: B, if you want to jump to whatever conclusion and close the SSP case, be my guest*, but the case is clear - he logged out, called me an abusive, incivil vandal, and then logged back in to thank his IP-self for giving me a dressing down. If that's not SP abuse, I don't know what is. That's why the notice, which is based on confirmed sockpuppetry (the SSP case is at best a formality, and the notice is not subject to blanking), is absolutely necessary and appropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      WP:Sock puppetry says "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively." Just admitting that one has used an account is not a confirmation of sockpuppetry. It would have to be established that the use was deceptive. People often forget to log in; that's not deceptive use so it's not sockpuppetry. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      Thanks Coppertwig, I believe I addressed that matter completely. Logging out in order to further an abusive end, while pretending to be two distinct users... that sounds about right. Thanks for your input. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

*This is rhetorical, I am not requesting that you do so - in fact, you've formed an opinion of the situation without properly investigating it, and I would therefore consider you far from impartial in ruling on the SSP case. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The language of WP:BLANKING only mentions *confirmed* sockpuppetry notices as being unremovable. I interpret this to mean that an admin has filled in the 'Conclusions' section on the SP report. Sockuppet cases are sometimes dismissed as 'innocent error' even when the suspect admits to using the IP account; that determination has not yet occurred in this case since it is still open. B wanted to close this 3RR complaint and I support closing the complaint with no action taken. I don't take a position on whether B should have removed the SSP notice from the IP's talk; such discussions (if they are necessary) should continue over at WP:SSP#User:Netkinetic. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur, and thank you for your input. I also believe that B should not be using this notice here at 3RR to make uninformed decisions about an ongoing SSP case. I would point out, however, that SP notices can be confirmed without an SSP case being concluded (ie when the editor admits it, intentionally or on purpose, as is the case here). Having admitted it, and then gone back to denying it, the SSP case seems like a formality, but since you think it's necessary, I see that filing it was the right way to go anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shipseggsbasket reported by User:Irtehprwn (Result: Stale)

  • Previous version reverted to: [150]


I have probably broken this rule by reverting what he reverted from me (He started reverting my edits), he calls my contributions, even those with sources, for vandalism because I had a few unsourced edits some time ago. He himself does not add sources, he reverts the page so that it fits him (With other words, without my sources and numbers) He also calls me a "Cancer", a "Vandal" and a few other insults and he keeps stating that all of my sources are unreliable and that I'm the greatest vandal of "all wikipedia", he has also reverted more pages than just Narva.

Warning posted: Shipseggsbasket has 4 reverts within 24 hours, but the account has only been active for about 2.5 days and no 3RR warning had been posted. I posted a 3RR warning at 00:14, 2 April 2008. Irtehprwn has not violated 3RR: the 4 reverts are over more than 24 hours. (I don't see the word "cancer" anywhere; you haven't given diffs of the insults, Irtehprwn. Anyway, this noticeboard is for 3RR, not primarily for enforcing WP:No personal attacks policy. You might want to look at WP:Dispute resolution. I hope it goes well.) No other action required here, I think. (non-admin opinion). --Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
These two accounts seem to exist only to edit war with each other. Any ideas whose socks they are? --B (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


And the dude has violated the rules he has violated the 3 rr rule Shipseggsbasket (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy is a mega vandal he goes around all of wikipedia and changes the numbers to fit his own personal agenda, I am only restoring the original numbers, just look at some of the few of the 100s of numbers he has changed, directly pulled from his behind to your screen

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge&diff=151750346&oldid=148499516 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surrender_at_Perevolochna&diff=197355718&oldid=193969900 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Northern_War&diff=156624101&oldid=154861543 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lutter&diff=196416603&oldid=195155167 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Poltava&diff=170543992&oldid=164772597 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Agincourt&diff=151074645&oldid=148361036 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jankov&diff=156621797&oldid=155045480 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Northern_War&diff=191750259&oldid=191691404 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lutter&diff=196416603&oldid=195155167 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_L%C3%BCtzen_%281632%29&diff=156619495&oldid=151408514 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_%281634%29&diff=156620676&oldid=154193835 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hogland&diff=193104541&oldid=159451219 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vyborg_Bay&diff=188178307&oldid=183732542 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surrender_at_Perevolochna&diff=197355718&oldid=193969900 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stralsund_%281715%29&diff=202175842&oldid=202060616 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_L%C3%BCtzen_%281632%29&diff=202279491&oldid=202064353 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_L%C3%BCtzen_%281632%29&diff=156619495&oldid=151408514 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_%281634%29&diff=156620676&oldid=154193835 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge&diff=151750346&oldid=148499516 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surrender_at_Perevolochna&diff=197355718&oldid=193969900 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Northern_War&diff=156624101&oldid=154861543 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lutter&diff=196416603&oldid=195155167 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Poltava&diff=170543992&oldid=164772597 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Agincourt&diff=151074645&oldid=148361036 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jankov&diff=156621797&oldid=155045480 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lihula&diff=158573926&oldid=118383957 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_%C5%BBarn%C3%B3w&diff=158574978&oldid=149403923 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Go%C5%82%C4%85b&diff=158575350&oldid=149404376 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Breitenfeld_%281631%29&diff=156670372&oldid=154035019 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Boer_War&diff=142680023&oldid=141557949 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Breitenfeld_%281642%29&diff=156670932&oldid=151364973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Sveaborg&diff=144505216&oldid=141392293 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Halmstad&diff=158581151&oldid=153212368 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_colonization_of_the_Americas&diff=155209058&oldid=154822496 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29&diff=156607681&oldid=156544136 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish-Swedish_War_%281600%E2%80%931611%29&diff=158576385&oldid=144570767 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Leipzig&diff=159471074&oldid=159404810 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Helsingborg_%281710%29&diff=158579932&oldid=154418112 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_St%C3%A4ket&diff=160124405&oldid=154628096 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipseggsbasket (talk • contribs) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Shipseggsbasket (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Stale. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:IronCrow reported by User:Landon1980 (Result: Warning)

  • Previous version reverted to: [155]


User is engaged in an edit war with multiple users. Continues to ignore WP:Source. His additions are adding content using first-party, heavily-biased sources. The said sources do not even back up his claim. He mindlessly reverts as much as necessary to keep the improperly sourced content in the article. He also keeps throwing out false accusations to multiple users. Landon1980 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1st and 2nd reverts are the same diff. 4th revert isn't a revert. Even putting that aside, thats many reverts in a few hours. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sockpuppetry entrapment, however. Relata refero (disp.) 11:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, see above. Relata refero (disp.) 11:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Warned. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Irtehprwn reported by User:Shipseggsbasket (Result: Already blocked)


] The guys has been going around all of Wikipedia changing numbers with unreferenced edits as can be seen here from his very first edit to almost all his edits he has 1 agenda, one purpose, to minimize Swedish casualties in all battles and to maximize those of the enemy. He pulls the numbers directly from his behind and the vast majority of his edits have no sources and the few that do are homemade internet pages. He must be stopped because if people are allowed to pull numbers directly from their behind and change them to whatever they want then Wikipedia is doomed. Shipseggsbasket (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge&diff=151750346&oldid=148499516 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surrender_at_Perevolochna&diff=197355718&oldid=193969900 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Northern_War&diff=156624101&oldid=154861543 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lutter&diff=196416603&oldid=195155167 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Poltava&diff=170543992&oldid=164772597 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Agincourt&diff=151074645&oldid=148361036 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jankov&diff=156621797&oldid=155045480 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Northern_War&diff=191750259&oldid=191691404 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lutter&diff=196416603&oldid=195155167 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_L%C3%BCtzen_%281632%29&diff=156619495&oldid=151408514 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_%281634%29&diff=156620676&oldid=154193835 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hogland&diff=193104541&oldid=159451219 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Vyborg_Bay&diff=188178307&oldid=183732542 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surrender_at_Perevolochna&diff=197355718&oldid=193969900 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stralsund_%281715%29&diff=202175842&oldid=202060616 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_L%C3%BCtzen_%281632%29&diff=202279491&oldid=202064353 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_L%C3%BCtzen_%281632%29&diff=156619495&oldid=151408514 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_%281634%29&diff=156620676&oldid=154193835 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge&diff=151750346&oldid=148499516 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surrender_at_Perevolochna&diff=197355718&oldid=193969900 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Northern_War&diff=156624101&oldid=154861543 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lutter&diff=196416603&oldid=195155167 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Poltava&diff=170543992&oldid=164772597 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Agincourt&diff=151074645&oldid=148361036 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Jankov&diff=156621797&oldid=155045480 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lihula&diff=158573926&oldid=118383957 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_%C5%BBarn%C3%B3w&diff=158574978&oldid=149403923 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Go%C5%82%C4%85b&diff=158575350&oldid=149404376 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Breitenfeld_%281631%29&diff=156670372&oldid=154035019 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Boer_War&diff=142680023&oldid=141557949 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Breitenfeld_%281642%29&diff=156670932&oldid=151364973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Sveaborg&diff=144505216&oldid=141392293 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Halmstad&diff=158581151&oldid=153212368 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_colonization_of_the_Americas&diff=155209058&oldid=154822496 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29&diff=156607681&oldid=156544136 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish-Swedish_War_%281600%E2%80%931611%29&diff=158576385&oldid=144570767 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Leipzig&diff=159471074&oldid=159404810 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Helsingborg_%281710%29&diff=158579932&oldid=154418112 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_St%C3%A4ket&diff=160124405&oldid=154628096 Shipseggsbasket (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked. by Scarian. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:75.141.194.92 reported by Cuddlyable3 (talk) (Result: No violation)

Straw man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 75.141.194.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 19:53, 31 March 2008 (edit summary: "")
  2. 04:51, 1 April 2008 (edit summary: "")
  3. 22:02, 1 April 2008 (edit summary: "")
  4. 22:07, 1 April 2008 (edit summary: "Pot shots at feminism will be deleted. Find a better example.")
  • Diff of warning: here~

Anonymous user 75.141.194.92 repeatedly deletes content at Straw_man and has ignored questioning of this behaviour at Talk:straw_man. I request that an administrator intervene.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation. - Edits 3 and 4 are together just one revert, therefore only three reverts altogether. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Note - It's customary to leave warnings on users' talk pages so that they will see them, rather than in an edit summary. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Yorkshirian reported by User:Jza84 (Result: Protected)


User:Yorkshirian appears to be warring over the inclusion of Template:Infobox settlement over Template:Infobox UK place. Four editors have objected to this at Talk:Beverley but Yorkshirian has continued to restore it. There are WikiProject guidelines at WP:UKCITIES which make clear that the latter infobox should be used here, whilst Yorkshirian has ignored this and focussed on an matter about a copyrighted image (that has no rationale) and threatened to revert here.

In addition to Beverley, Yorkshirian has also warred on two other articles (with the same purpose) with less than helpful summaries:

I should add that there have been Issues relating to civility and he has been blocked before for warring.

Finally, just as I'm about to complete this report, Yorkshirian left me an unhelpful message where he calls me a "troll" and my consensual edit "vandalism" here. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there's more. I realise this is not 3RR but civility but I don't see the point of making two seperate reports. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the time Jza84 has provided on the diffs, they do not fall within a 24 hour period for a start (look at the date of the first one he is claiming and compare). Also the "5th" one he is claiming, which he has incorrectly marked as a revert, is not one at all, it is clearly marked in the edit summary as "compromise edit... uploaded new shield from the town website and fixed the OS grid" and was explain indepth on the talk. I have not violated the 3RR, period. I made three reverts in a 24 hour period and did not go over that.

As the diffs, show Jza84 went on a campaign, which is highly suspicious and looks like trolling, to remove the official coat of arms represenative of the towns. Images which have full rationales. He did this demanding that UK places must conform to this by using the inadequate "UK place" box instead of "Infobox settlement". Yet when I edited the Manchester article, to follow with what Jza84 has said, using the correct UK infobox, he reverted it, despite the so called consensus on WP:UKCITIES. I feel that Jza84 is trolling my edits, simply to remove coats of arms from towns in a county he doesn't like, while insisting that Manchester have a different infobox and include arms. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not responding, but ask that the closing admin take a look at Yorkshirian's contributions around 12:00 (UTC) today which I interpret as a breach of WP:POINT. I've shared my objections and concerns at Yorkshirian's talk page. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the closing admin, take a look at Jza84's failure to comply with WP:Consensus established at WP:UKCITIES once he has stated that all UK cities must comply to it. Especially inregards to his disruption on the article Manchester, where he removed the "UK place" infobox, which community consensus holds must be used for UK placed. He continued this despite a warning on his talk. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is clear (at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Infobox.2A). Yorkshirian games false claims. My final comment here. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Page protected. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -