Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive74

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
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
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
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
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:Kaiwhakahaere reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 24 and 48 hour blocks )

Part of a general pattern of incivility towards me by this user, as well as a debate over the standard of referencing in this article. The user is consciously ignoring the numerous times I have pointed them towards the WP:VUE policy. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked both the reported user and the reportee for 24 and 48 hours respectively. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Collectonian reported by User:Abtract (Result: no action)

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]
  • 1st revert: [2] 00.13 2 June
  • 2nd revert: [3] 00.56 2 June
  • 3rd revert: [4] 01.00 2 June
  • 4th revert: [5] 1.05 2 June
  • No warning necessary as this is a very experienced user who knows better but has let a silly error during a self-admitted wikibonk phase turn into a vendetta. I tried a very reasonable softly, softly approach but sadly this was the response.
  • Refused - currently at WP:ANI (reporting editor had also breached 3RR). Black Kite 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In what way have I breached 3RR? Abtract (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, change to "was inadvisedly edit-warring". Still, this is at WP:ANI as you know, which is a better venue. Black Kite 01:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Just so I have this straight ... she reverts my very reasonable edits 4 times without a decent edit summary (indeed calling mine vandalism) and she doesn't get blocked; that's what you are saying? Abtract (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
          • No. See your talk page. Black Kite 01:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Arzel reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: No violation)


  1. Revision as of 10:13, 29 May 2008
  2. Revision as of 16:13, 30 May 2008
  3. Revision as of 19:57, 30 May 2008
  4. Revision as of 10:56, 31 May 2008
  5. Revision as of 15:11, 31 May 2008


No violation. Arzel's removals are exempt under WP:BLP. He was taking out inadequately-referenced negative material from a biographical article. Since the people who keep putting back this material are gradually improving the sourcing, he may not be able to get away with this indefinitely. Neither Blaxthos nor Arzel has so far made any use of the Talk page of the article. (It should be noted that the NY Times reference offered for the critical material doesn't mention Gretchen Carlson, so it's not an ideal reference for criticism of Gretchen. It is not clear that blogs are a suitable reference here either). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Response. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that Blaxthos has an ongoing dispute with me personally over other articles. He has never once commented on that talk page, and as near as I can tell never made an edit. It would appear that he "followed" me to that page and is reviewing my edits, showing a huge lack of good faith. Additionally, I can't understand why he would even be in favor of such vague references to controversies within a BLP. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the anoyn added the same material multiple times without reliables sources, any sources, or sources even relating to Carlson multiple times and I am the one that gets reported? Not cool at all. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Including liberal criticism added context to the article. From reading the entire article there was no reference for the reader to be aware that she is considered a controversial figure in journalism and on television. Additionally, Keith Olbermann ("Claims of ideological bias") Bill O'Reilly ("Controversy and criticism") and Brit Hume all have similar controversy sections so it seemed obvious that one controversy section should be included for Carlson. Regardless, Arzel chose not to use the discussion section and seemed ideologically bent on keeping any criticism out. Notably, he did not dispute any of the citations as EdJohnston has appropriately done. Surely the admin notices Arzel has been removing criticism of mainly conservative figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.230.48.50 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kuratowski's Ghost reported by User:70.19.197.168 (Result: Stale)



The malicious user didn't make these deletions in a short period, but should be blocked, as is the discretion of the Administrator in this type of case. The user's Talk page has numerous warnings spread out over wide amounts of time, on many articles.

Hasn't reverted since 1 am this morning, ergo, stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There were nowhere near four reverts by Kuratowski's Ghost in 24 hours. The submitter of this complaint, and some of his supporters, persist in adding an unsourced passage to the Immanuel article. If your claim is correct, you should be able to find sources. It seems probable that Mateek (talk · contribs), 70.22.168.24 (talk · contribs), 70.19.192.13 (talk · contribs), and 70.19.197.168 (talk · contribs) are all the same editor. Otherwise the exact coincidence of viewpoints between Mateek and these three single-purpose accounts would be curious. Sockpuppetry on admin noticeboards is not likely to be a successful strategy. (Mateek is inviting a block, in my opinion). If the abuse continues, semi-protection of the article should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because the Wikipedia cookie expires when I'm filing here at the 3RR Noticeboard, or I forget to sign innocently doesn't make me intentionally deceptive in any way, which accounts for the IP addresses. My DSL provider (Verizon) changes them at their will, and I don't have any connection to them. The Noticeboard description says deletions older than 24 hours can still be considered for a block. I don't have the time to ask to become an Admin here, but I doubt you are authorized. I could've sworn instead of User: it should have said Admin:. Either way, you and Scarian fail in your duties miserably. Mateek (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It does not take rocket science to be sure you are logged in to Wikipedia under your own name when you file a 3RR report. It might have been helpful if you had acknowledged that you had made IP edits on Immanuel somewhere in the text of your report. If you think these details don't matter, take a look at WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Nor is it rocket science to know a worn out Wikipedia cookie would sign me out right in the middle, accounting for the IP. Mateek (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as failure, Mateek, when you make a change that can lead to a success. If you want something done it's best not to insult the two most regular admins who oversee the board. :-) ScarianCall me NANCY! 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ave Caesar reported by User:71.233.150.26 (Result: A different IP was blocked 48 hours )


This user has shown an obvious bias against the Harvard Extension School. This user is not only edit warring on the Harvard Extension School page, but if you go through the users contribs you will see that he has a history of edit warring. Also, you can see in the users Talk page that he has had dozens of users say something about this, but he just deletes the comments immediatly, threatens to have them blocked, then writes negative things on their talk pages. He is essentially trying to bully his edits into wikipedia. I feel that he should recieve a block, since he has not responded to any warnings to stop edit warring. --71.233.150.26 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 64.91.165.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 48 hours for violating 3RR on Harvard Extension School and for deleting others' comments from the article's Talk page. The submitter of this 3RR complaint, 71.233.150.26 (talk · contribs), is cautioned for adding promotional language to Harvard Extension School which violates WP:NPOV. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand that the language that I put in the Harvard Extension School page could be considered "promotional", even though I did not intend it to be, and that is why I did not put it back in. But would you agree that Ave Caeser is going against consensus by continuing to revert peoples edits? --71.233.150.26 (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that Ave Caesar was trying to ensure neutral point of view. He did not go over the 3RR limit himself. The 64.91 editor's deletions of well-sourced material bordered on vandalism. If you think the current article is not sufficiently positive about the school, I urge you to take your concerns to the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well looks like this took care of itself while I was offline. Let me know if you need me to comment. Thanks for looking into this closely, Ed.--Ave Caesar (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kossack4Truth reported by 71.130.194.163 (talk) (Result: 48 hour block )

  1. 14:01, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "There is no consensus for Scjessey's version. Andyvphil, Justmeherenow, Fovean Author and I have all spoken out against it on the article Talk page. If you want to remove this, show consensus.")
  2. 21:49, 24 May 2008 (edit summary: "There is no demonstration of a consensus on the Talk page for any other version.")
  3. 21:59, 24 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214703408 by Bobblehead. That evidence is insufficient.")
  4. 14:44, 25 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214839051 by Johnpseudo (talk)")
  5. 13:26, 30 May 2008 (edit summary: "This is the consensus version, supported by seven editors. See Talk page.")
  6. 13:35, 30 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 215961961 by Scjessey This is the consensus version, supported by seven editors. See Talk page.")
  7. 13:48, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */")
  8. 13:49, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
  9. 13:51, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
  10. 13:52, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
  11. 13:54, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */")
  12. 13:55, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
  13. 14:57, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
  14. 12:02, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Correcting typos, clarifying name of church")
  15. 12:07, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Correcting more typos")
  16. 17:13, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216424952 by Modocc This is supported by consensus. Please see Talk page.")
  17. 17:59, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216441515 by Modocc (talk)")
  18. 18:20, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */")
  19. 20:19, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Later primaries */")
  20. 20:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Better sentence structure, active voice rather than passive voice is always preferred")
  21. 23:17, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Yeah, you're right. There's no consensus for burying this all the way down there. It belongs in the "Presidential campaign section."")
  22. 03:22, 2 June 2008 (edit summary: "Jimmy Wales said: "It isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article." See WP:CRIT")

User:Kossack4Truth's entire edit history consists of introducing POV and non-relevant material into Barack Obama (and writing large treatises on talk pages about "how readers must know the 'dark underside' of Obama"). This material always consists of large paragraphs expounding on the evils of Obama's "associates"; mostly, these edits are exact reinsertions of the same material removed by consensus; occasionally it is a slight rewording of the same WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE violations. S/he has been blocked for the same exact action before, but has again gone over 3RR today. 71.130.194.163 (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of edits listed, but not reverts. You need four, in 24 hours, to break 3RR. Fixing typos doesn't count. Andyvphil (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack is edit warring. He reverted both my attempts to remove his massive POV push midday yesterday. This morning, he just reintroduced the massive POV push again and reverted by another editor, and then put it back [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=216598862&oldid=216546848.. At least four massive POV pushes in less than a day is edit warring. He is also ignoring a consensus to not introduce a controversy section to the article. His/her edits are disruptive. Modocc (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

BHO bio Dissident "Kossack" edit wars but keeps from actually reverting over thrice (exactly as BHO bio Apologist "Lulu" did, during 24 hours yesterday, as well). Since the variuos BHO bio contributors including these two are busily at work on the talkpage as we speak, toward a compromise, please refrain, Mister--M/s Honorable Admin., from squinting at innocuous edits to push either editor (well, that is, should somebody file as well against Lulu) over the top. — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Kossack for 48 hours. ScarianCall me NANCY! 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Blnguyen reported by User:68.83.179.37 (Result: Reporter blocked 31 hours)

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I (user name Anup Ramakrishnan) am making this post from outside of my account in Wiki. In a certain page here, titled Viv Richards, a player of the game of cricket, there is a lot of trouble being created by some extremely biased and cheap fans of other cricketers who do not want to see facts about others that their own favorites cannot boast of.

This has led to my having to revert their edits more than twice, and one of the miscreants on that page is getting his friends to revert my edits so that he himself would not violate the rules on this site. Please warn the user Blnguyen not to come on that site and remove whatever goes against his own views and opinions on the subject, even if they are fact. He is guilty of false citations and lies on other pages which I am not even detailing here. Hope you understand and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.179.37 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the IP (it was him who violated the 3RR) for 31h. Please somebody refactore this section Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC).
Reformatted the above report (originally submitted in the wrong section). EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This report is completely malicious. The above user, who has been editing under an account as well, continues to add POV uncited statements to both Sachin Tendulkar and Viv Richards (e.g. "Viv is the King of Everything") type statements, and he is now in danger of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. He has also been very uncivil on the Tendulkar talk page. He will need some watching when his block expires. SGGH speak! 09:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jkp212 reported by User:John celona (Result: 24 hour block)

In the midst of a mediation, this user has 4 times, within 24 hours, reverted the page to delete the word "prison" from the article. The user has previously [[6]] been issued a 3RR warning. Here are the 4 edits which constitute the violation: 1. [[7]] 2. [[8]] 3. [[9]] 4. [[10]] John celona (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Result I have blocked the user for 24 hours. ScarianCall me NANCY! 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Arcayne reported by User:Kurdo777 (Result: No violation)

  • It's clear from Arcayne's block log that he has already been blocked for edit-waring and 3RR on eight occasions!!!, his last block was for the duration of 79 hours only 4 weeks ago.--Kurdo777 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No violation. Arcayne's edits appear to be exempt under WP:BLP. Your claim that Googoosh's parents lived in Iranian Azerbaijan rather than Azerbaijan has no reliable source. In fact, Googoosh's own web site says she was born to Azerbaijani immigrant parents from the former Soviet Union. (i.e. not from Iran). This implies that your claim is wrong. Find reliable sources for the statement you are trying to make, and then we will start enforcing 3RR on any further reverts beyond that point. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And, just to point out that Kurdo has been repeatedly asked (and eventually warned) by many other editors to utilize the discussion page to discuss his edits instead of edit-warring. I should have pointed out in article discussion that my reverts regarding the (regionally) polarizing ethnicity issue was based upon BLP; that's my bad. If a reliable, verifiable source is added, I have no intention of fighting it. I don't care one way or the other; it just needs a citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A few points about this report. 1) User:EdJohnston has a history with Arcayne, he was canvassed for help by Arcayne in another dispute I had with Arcayne only a few days ago. 2) The Iranian Azerbaijan theory is supported by several sources. 3) All of Arcayne's reverts are in violation of WP:BLP by claiming that GooGosh is currently married to Kimiaei, when there is no evidence that the two are still together. Taking into account 1, 2, 3, could another admin please re-review this report? --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation. Concur with EdJohnston. Arcayne's edits are exempt from the 3-revert-rule; the edits of those re-adding the information are not. The article, however, is a mess of fact tags and needs some aggressive pruning. CIreland (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
comment - Again, it would bear to point out the characterization of 'canvassing' is pretty inaccurate. I asked for a neutral set of eyes in the Anti-Iranian sentiment. It is also insightful to point out that Kurdo was counseled and warned not to editwar there as well (a behavior which had occurred on two prior occasions and resulted most recently in the article being dispute-locked).
Also, there is a citation noting the state of marriage, which is backed up by the article subject's own website. There is no citation suggesting that they are divorced or estranged from one another. Had Kurdo responded to the repeated requests for discussion regarding these matters, this would have been pointed out earlier, and might have made his confusion here somewhat unnecessary. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Abtract reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: 48 hour block )


User has a clear history of relentless incivility, harassing/inciting other editors, gaming the system, sparking edit wars, etc. (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract‎). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked the user for 48 hours. ScarianCall me NANCY! 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:DHeyward reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result: Page protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: [11]

User knows the rules and was warned that he was breaking 3RR here:[12] Other editor attempted to discuss with him the conflict but user simply reverted the message.

There are many other reverts going back over the past couple days. There are only 4 reverts within the last 24 hours, violating the 3RR which is an electronic fence not to be crossed, besides his edit warring in general, and I note lack of the use of the talk page to discuss the content dispute.

Conflict is about adding the information about the article's POV on the abortion issue, and his wanting to take a capital case.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


These are BLP violations and oversighted reverts in the list (notice back to back edits by me with no differences, as well as on my talk page). Please check with User:Fred Bauder of oversight before taking action as he is the oversight person who I've worked with on those edits. Also please note that Giovanni33 was looking to bait me with a single unexplained revert. Not cool and I even told him on his talk page that these were oversighted edits. Please ask to stop wikistalking me and supporting those that harass me. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There were a couple of edits which were inappropriate (a stale dispute revisited). What remains visible now (pro-life) and (capital case) is unobjectionable. Fred Talk 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no BLP concerns here. DHeyward is not assuming good faith either with his unfounded accusation that I was trying to "bait him." That is absurd just like his other accusations here. I even left a message on the talk page asking him to discuss his concern instead of just edit-warring. I also left one on his talk page. If there was some BLP issue then the offending editor would have been warned, or blocked. Instead we just have DHeyward edit-warring on his own, over the course of several days.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course you don't see it. It's been oversighted. A user would have been blocked but this is a low-level of activity IP editor so we just deal with it using rollback and other edits. The IP editor is aka Kek15 and her edits were discussed over a month ago. --DHeyward (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are mixing up and confusing that with this issue. I see nothing related to the user Kek15 here, and nothing about BLP or privacy. The issue is public information that you are reverting, specifically his view on Abortion (relevant given the case), and his being rejected for a Capital Case, based on inexperience according to the judge. What is the privacy concern, here?Giovanni33 (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have not been involved in this article so that is why you do not know anything. Isnerting yourself was a bad idea since it was only to bait me.. --DHeyward (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted myself pending other input but please address the wikistalking and baiting that User:Giovanni33 is engaged in. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am formerly Kek15 and my issue with this article and Dheyward had nothing to do with this content. I was attempting to add the term Christian Terrorirst and this is well documented on the article talk page. Dheyard is confusing 2 issues here. The content that he is attempting to remove now has been in the article for a long time without objection from him or anyone else. I (and others) are pleading with Dheyard to please use the article talk page to present his rationale for removing this content at this time. It is sourced, it is public information, and has been in the article for a long time. DHeyward is an experienced editor who does know the rules. He has violated the 3RR and I have left him 2 warnings on his talk page. He really does know better. Why does he refuse to discuss this? Why the edit war? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
"Terrorist" is hardly a term that should be tossed around lightly, and it's inexplicable that you think such a thing ever belongs in a NPOV article. Even the article on Osama bin Laden only mentions that word in the context of direct quotes and references (such as saying he's on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list), rather than using it directly as a description of the person. Now, "stalking" and "harassing" are also terms that shouldn't be tossed around nearly as much as they are, and it's disappointing that DHeyward uses them in the context of an editing dispute. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The term Christian terrorist was not being tossed around lightly and has nothing to do with this current edit war (that other issue was over a month ago). The term applied to one of Scarborough's clients, but sufficient sourcing was not found for it to appear in the article as opposed to the article on Eric Rudolph where the sourcing and consensus does provide for its inclusion. I agree that DHeyward is a more experienced editor than some of his comments here would indicate. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If OBL is not a terrorist - who is? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently waiting on DHeyward to propose alternative wording that is to his satisfaction in order that article can be unprotected. See Joe Scarborough talk page. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected. by User:Viridae. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Locke Cole reported by User:SQL (Result: Two users blocked.)

Explanation, Locke Cole (talk · contribs), has a very long history of edit warring on WP:BOTS ([13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]) and WP:BAG ([26] [27] [28] [29] [30]) , and, has been blocked multiple times for edit warring (in fact, just recently[31]). At this point, it appears the system is being gamed, by running right up to 3RR, with his preferred version, even though multiple other users are reverting it to the version that describes the current practice. He is clearly aware of the Three Revert Rule, and, generally chooses to ignore it, it seems. Anyhow, it appears, he's back, trying to kick up the same old problems. SQLQuery me! 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

" Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.. — Werdna talk 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: Both Locke Cole and Betacommand. — Werdna talk 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Betacommand2 remains unblocked. What's the procedure in cases of multiple accounts? Leithp 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It remains unblocked until he uses it to circumvent the block. If he does circumvent the block, then it will be extended [for all accounts]. But he wouldn't be stupid enough to do that. ScarianCall me NANCY! 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:UtherSRG reported by User:Mark t young (Result: Two editors 31 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [32]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [37]
  • This is an edit war over what page Marsupial lion links to. The pages as is, current makes little sense, and is being discussed at: [38]. At the moment there is no consensus as there is two editors on both side of the arguement.
Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Both UtherSRG and Cazique. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thsebajabum reported by User:Montco (Result: Already blocked 31 hours)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [43]

Including the four reverts since the warning was issued. Montco (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked. 31 hours by Doczilla. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mosesconfuser reported by User:Appletrees (Result: 24 hours)

The edit waring originally started by Mosesconfuser (talk · contribs) on May 31th over whether some part of history could be interpreted as a legend or regarded written history on multiple articles related to Korea, but there is no discussion on the controversial subject except this mockery.

Regardless of the 3RR waring and my advice to participate in a discussion to the both party, unlike Kubie, Mosesconfuser ignored and reverted to his preferred version twice. Besides, meanwhile, he also added another previously reverted contents. Judging by his POV pushing and writing habits, I don't think Mosesconfuser is a newbie, so he needs a lesson from his violation. --Appletrees (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:I am a jedi reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hours )



Result - I have blocked the user for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Redman19 reported by User:Icykip2005 (Result: Article protected)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [44] (this is an old edit-war & 3rr warning to the same user. The user had been in edit wars on other articles. Hence, there isn't a new warning about Galatasaray article.)
  • here I explained my edition in details but the user keeps calling that vandalism.
Page protected. Both these editors seem well-intentioned, and they participate on Talk, though not always courteously. They are not the first sports fans to take all details extremely seriously. Protected two days. If the revert war starts up again after two days, blocks will be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The two editors left extremely lengthy comments here, which I have moved to Talk:Galatasaray S.K.. Please continue the debate there. Since the alternative is to immediately block both editors, please show some patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Good work, Ed. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OK this is my last comment here. I still don't understand how did the user with 3rr violation twice get away with no punishment. This certainly will make the user think he was right about 3rr vioaltions and will encourage him for new edit wars. --Icykip2005 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) If he does edit war again, then report him here again. Ed made the right decision, in my opinion. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont get it why are you thinking im vandalising things Icykip2005? I made the Galatasaray page look nice with the right info but you seem to have missed my point when you are reverting your edits are deleting some precious info ! please take a look at it by yourself and you will see what I mean I was never banned or blocked, Im just a user thats tries to add useful info at pages and clean up vandalism

Redman19 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Andyvphil reported by 76.168.6.152 (talk) (Result: No vio )

Barack Obama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 11:27, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ restore material")
  2. 11:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Better description than "fundraiser".")
  3. 11:48, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Part of what "radical activist" means.")
  4. 13:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "restoration; improve cite for TUCC resignation")
  5. 23:25, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Restore section, specify meaning of "several".")
  6. 14:32, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ bit more specificity")
  7. 15:54, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Equating bombing with radicalism is offensive

to radicals, such as myself.")

User:Andyvphil has resumed edit warring over exact same topic (slightly different wording) as blocked users (possible socks) User:Kossack4Truth and User:Fovean Author. A long discussion on article talk reached (rough) consensus on minimal encyclopedic language to use in mentioned "disreputable associates" of bio subject, in a WP:SUMMARY article. Andyvphil has resumed inserting identical long digresssions about these third persons; probably hoping to sneak them in during the recently accelerated editing by previously uninvolved editors (in unrelated article areas, the completed nomination race drew lots of editor interest).

—76.168.6.152 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Only 2 reverts on the 4th of June that I can see. If you believe them to be socks then take it to WP:SSP or WP:RfCU. I've blocked those guys before so no doubt they'll be back again. No vio. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Andyvphil is a sock of K4T. Sorry if the wording was unclear. I meant K4T/FA as socks of each other. There's a request for check at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. You're right that Andyvphil has only reverted to the edit-warring stuff twice (so far) today. 76.168.6.152 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries, Mr.IP. Thanks for being so vigilant. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Only 2 reverts on the 4th of June that I can see. Sic! Scarian, if you are going to enforce 3RR you need to count more carefully. Mr. Anonymous IP's undigested listing of all my edits shows a total of two edits on 6/4, and the first is... a revert? To what version? He deserves censure for filing a ridiculously false report, not thanks. Andyvphil (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
...and speaking of sockpuppets, an editor whose third edit is a posting of this report [45] is a likely candidate. Whom are you better known as, Mr. Anonymous IP? Andyvphil (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:PelleSmith reported by — Dzonatas (Result: no vio)

Natural theology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). PelleSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:32, 4 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "undo - please bring the quote to the talk page ... natural theology is not theology "on nature" ... you seem to have that reversed")
  2. 23:51, 4 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "google it or search your local library ... this is clearly and undisputably a notable concept ...")
  3. 00:56, 5 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "you are pushing it here ... see the body of the entry and all the various notable people engaged in "natural theology"")
  • PelleSmith continues to not provided substantial material to satisfy citations. He seems to use the reverts in order to avoid WP:BURDEN on natural theology. PelleSmith's first revert actually removed a citation from the lead that can be used to verify it, so I tagged it for him to satisfy the needed citations, and you can see his replies above in the reverts. It is also suspicious that he used the wikiprojects to draw attention to an AfD on astrotheology. (which now someone else has made the 4th revert -- reverting citation tags without providing any refs???)

—— Dzonatas 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For reference, PelleSmith's WikiProject request is looks like this. He contacted the Religion, Christianity, and Philosophy projects. Also, I have further reverted this user, because it seemed to me that the tagging is very pointy. How can something like natural theology not be notable? The user seems frustrated. Merzul (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear why he stated "pointy." I asked on Merzul's talk page to clarify. PelleSmith's reason to revert my change is merely based on the question that *I* made the change. PelleSmith didn't question the content of the change at all. See the talk page. If you notice in AN/I, it shows how he also reverted the lead in astrotheology. He seems to support that "astrotheology is natural theology" in order to get it merged into natural theology, even though I have shown many times that astrotheology is not based on teleology like natural theology's original principle. The citation I added explains that, he deleted it. Even if citations for other parts of the lead can be given, this one obviously deserves more merit than to outright delete it (and further request tags) — Dzonatas 02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No violation. There are only three reverts listed in this report. You need four to violate 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Reezy reported by User:Mosmof (Result: 8 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: 22:43, May 29, 2008 - user continues to insert obvious copyvio image.
  • Diff of 3RR warning: 00:36, June 5, 2008
  • Both editors blocked – for a period of 8 hours. Both images are available under free licenses so there is no copyright issue, and both the reporter and the reportee have made four reverts. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I've unblocked Mosmof as the image page of the image he was reverting had copyvio tags on it at the time, so it is reasonable to assume that he thought he was reverting a copyvio. Reezy remains blocked. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It's besides the point, but I should point out that I didn't think I was reverting a copyvio, I was reverting obvious copyvio. --Mosmof (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cumulus Clouds reported by Malcolm Schosha (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks)

  • This user has the same 4 reverts on the article. Their warning was made in the middle of my own fourth revert, which I apologize for. All parties have been warned and I expect the edit war will cease. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Malformed report. Anyway, both users blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Marburg72 reported by User:Grey Wanderer (Result: Declined)

  • Previous version reverted to: [51]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [56]

User has been around for a while, he should probably know better than this. Of note also are several accusations of racism [57] [58] that an admin may want to take into account.

Declined. Whilst the editor has been around for about 10 months, he has made less than 100 edits in that time and thus I would not regard him as experienced. Since he has not performed a revert since he was warned of the 3-revert-rule, I would not be prepared to block unless he made a further reversion. CIreland (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 209.142.181.172 reported by user:Loonymonkey (Result: 24 hours)


  • This user is adding inappropriately POV material to the article and reverting any attempts to remove it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johan Rachmaninov‎ reported by Alex 101 (Result: both users blocked, 10 hours)

Bad Religion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Johan Rachmaninov‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 03:22, 4 June 2008
  2. 18:31, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216998019 by Alex 101 (talk) Someone needs to read the policy on OR")
  3. 22:27, 4 June 2008
  4. 23:27, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217176589 by Alex 101 (talk) No OR")
  5. 02:33, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")
  6. 02:33, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/Undid revision 217196176 by Alex 101 (talk)")
  7. 22:47, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217335707 by Alex 101 (talk)")
  8. 22:49, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk) Undid per WP:NORN")
  9. 23:24, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217420991 by Alex 101 (talk) No")
  10. 00:08, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217427324 by Alex 101 (talk) How is vandalism if i have a source?")
  11. 00:19, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217429778 by Alex 101 (talk) it Dosn't matter what you think. Again, read WP:NORN")
  12. 00:55, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
  13. 00:55, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
  14. 01:12, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")
  15. 01:13, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217320122 by Alex 101 (talk)")

Johan Rachmaninov‎ has repeatedly been edit warring with me on the Bad Religion page by changing the band's genre. He keeps changing their genre hardcore punk to pop punk. Bad Religion is actually a hardcore punk band, not a pop punk band and they are not Blink-182, Good Charlotte, Green Day, Sum 41 and Yellowcard, who all use that genre. He's been doing this for two days and he won't stop. I've really had enough of it. Earlier today, I already sent a request to block it in a way to stop this argument. So please, ban this guy without delay; he has a bad habit of not listening to me when I ask him to stop what he's doing.

Both editors blocked – for a period of 10 hours. CIreland (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jazz81089 reported by User:Appletrees (Result: No vio? Request extra review; Review: both blocked 24 hours)

I happened to know the article due to repeated vandalism on manhwa by OCN ISP anon[59][60] who also vandalised the page of Blade of the Phantom Master as blanking the nationality of the artists.[61] The main dispute is that it is only manga, Japanese comics, or manhwa. However, the two are translated into Japanese / Korean cartoon, so I presented a compromised version like " the work is a cartoon and an animation series created by Korean manhwa artist..., specializing as Japanese manga published by a Japanese publisher"....However, the anon removed all Korean mention and manhwa. I think this disruption is unfair, but have tried to resolve the dispute enough, as opened a discussion at the talk page, left message at Japanese OCN ISP anon(s) for discussion several times, even filed RFC and went WP:AIV, WP:RFP. But nothing returned from the other, and the anon keeps ignoring all WP:DR methods and removed Korean mention which originally addressed on the article. However, too obvious sock account (return after his/her 8 month break and under 15 edits in total). There is no other participant in dispute, the anon is highly likely Jazz81089. I went to WP:RFCU, but due to his scare total edits made Checkuser hard to judge anything.Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou

I believe that this case is related to a banned user who did the same thing on the article in question last June, and the anon/Jazz81089 also already violated 3RR rules.

I don't see that he has any intention to cooperate with the opponent (me) and regard a consensus. Judging by the circumstance evidence, the dynamic anon could be none but Jazz81089. He violated 3RR rules twice, so I think he needs a lesson on his violations. --Appletrees (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To other admins - I see Jazz81089 has made 3 reverts in 24 hours, which is edit warring. If the IP can be proven to be him then it's 4. Would a block be in order for Appletrees and Jazz? They've both made 3 reverts. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both editors are engaging in edit waring, waiting in some cases as little as 30 minutes after the dealine to revert again. They are both Gaming_the_system --Selket Talk 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Selket's action seems correct. In case the situation continues in the future, notice that Jazz81089 appears determined to remove mention of any Korean connection from Blade of the Phantom Master. This work, though published in Japan as manga, was created by a Korean author, so Jazz's repeated removals don't seem well-advised. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.243.88.114 reported by Q T C (Result: 24 hour block )

Minutes to Midnight (album)‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 69.243.88.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:38, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  2. 21:43, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  3. 21:44, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  4. 21:51, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  5. 21:56, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  6. 22:01, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  7. 22:03, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  8. 22:03, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  9. 22:04, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here

—Q T C 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Wafa Sultan reported by User:M1ss1ontomars2k4 (Result: Page protected)


Just look at the history page. They're having a rather unamusing revert war which I attempted to mediate; meditation failed as one IP refuses to listen and the other refuses to assume good faith. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I reported the user for vandalism because this is what he is doing. He repeatedly removed references from the Jerusalem Post and the Sydney Morning Herald and replaced them with one that cites Wikipedia as a source, and after I warned him, he decided to continue with his vandalism, while copying my edit summaries and even added a warning template to my talkpage. 63.216.113.163 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that's because you did the same to the other IP. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Page protected. — Werdna talk 00:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anyeverybody reported by User:Crum375 (Result: Article protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: 03:16, June 5, 2008 Adds his self made image: Crash image=ArrowDc-8.png



This is about User:Anyeverybody reverting 4 times within 4 hours, after being warned, and being asked to revert himself, to no avail.
He persists in adding his own self-made images into an accident article, where what happened is in dispute, violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. He has also violated 3RR, and I have asked him to revert himself, which he has not done. I have unfortunately had to run up to three reverts myself, and as involved admin I am stopping to let others deal with him. Crum375 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody choosing to block Anyeverybody over this should, in fairness, block Crum375 as well - he's made the opposite reversion himself about 8 times in the past week (though never more than three times within any actual 24 hour period as far as I can see). Actually, without resorting to blocking, I'm trying to get these parties actually talking constructively. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If performing 8 reverts in a week is a violation, I am not sure where that's stated. I also suspect most active Wikipedians would be "violating" that routinely. This page is about WP:3RR, and this editor has reverted 4 times in 4 hours. Crum375 (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You might care to re-read WP:3RR and note that the whole purpose of the rule is to avoid edit warring, and that it's possible to violate this even having made fewer than three reversions in a 24-hour period. Reverting over and over again is not going to resolve a dispute... --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As you have protected the article, there is no threat of disruption and thus blocking anyone is inappropriate. Blocks are preventative, not punative. --B (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that Crum has been reverting more than the image; his/her evidence actually shows him/her reverting improvements to the page besides the image. Moreover his/her response on the article's talk page seem to indicate this as well as they seem to refuse to enter into discussions about expanding the article on the talk page. Anynobody 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Rlandmann has protected the article. There is nothing more to argue about here. Anybody blocking Crum375 over this should be desysopped faster than you can say arbitration. --B (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If the case weren't moot due to the protection, in my view a block of Anynobody would have been appropriate. A self-made computer-generated image of what the airplane might have looked like under one of the scenarios can't be justified by any reference to reliable sources. He did go over 3RR while Crum did not. It's hard to make a defence of Anynobody's edits as being within policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure - I agree it would have been appropriate. I eventually protected the article as an alternative to blocking both of them. I'd rather have them talking. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yahel Guhan reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: No action )


Please note the user reverted the same material 4 times in 24 hours and 43 minutes.
In each revert, the user adds the following material:

This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims. Freedom House showed on its website, on a page tiled "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia", a picture of a sign showing Muslim-only and non-Muslim roads.

First of all, I never violated the 3rr rule, as my edits are not within a 24 hour period. Second, you are an equally active member in the dispute, as you alone have reverted the inclusion each time I added it ever since the first time I added it. Not to mention you recently got away with 2 3rr violations without being blocked. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In the last 40 hours I've made 3 reverts to the article while you've made 4 in just over 24 hours. Secondly, I'm giving you a chance to correct yourself. If I was given the chance to do so, I would only be too glad to self-revert.Bless sins (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
NO. I made 3 reverts, not 4 in 24 hours, and so have you. You are probably just waiting for me to be blocked, or an hour to pass before you revert me agian. Instead you make more false allegations of a non-real 3rr violation. Conviently just one day after your incorrect stalking report. This is simple math; it is 3, not 4. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Note to admins, Bless Sins appears to be forum shopping for a block of Yahel Guhan. See also: [62] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: blocking: I've stated 3 times now that I will retract this report if Yahel self-reverts. Had I wanted to see the user get blocked I wouldn't have have warned him twice ([63], [64]) before coming here.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You want your way in the article, and am willing to make up allegations of a falsified 3rr report in order to get it. You want that clause deleted inspite of it being well sourced and within wiki policies. Warnings are a required step in making 3rr reports, and even though you did the math incorrectly, you know a warning is required before a block is ever made. I love how you attempt to hide your real intentions. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You are well aware of the 3 revert rule, and have been blocked for it in the past. Hence no warning is necessary. ITAQALLAH 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to other admins - YahelGuhan, despite being just outside of the 24 hour limit (40 or so minutes doesn't count, as that's gaming the system), has violated 3RR. Both users, in fact, are edit warring, but I am unsure of how to proceed. I would suggest a block for both. Thoughts? ScarianCall me Pat! 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Since Yahel Guhan's last revert I've not made any reversions (though I could have). The edits you see that I made after Yahel Guhan (in the history) are uncontroversial improvements to the article.Bless sins (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You are probably just biding your time. Afraid you are going to get blocked, you are trying to temporarily depict yourself as a better editor. I doubt it will last, as your editing shows you do still want that paragraph removed, and you have a history of edit warring to get your way. Second, my intention was not to game the system. I didn't plan to be reverting 40 minutes after the block expired. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it be, unless and until we see more disruption. — Werdna talk 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable --B (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Both editors are urged to discuss on the talk page instead of reverting. Trebor (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:62.178.118.77 and other IP-numbers reported by User:WaldiR (Result: No vio)

  • Previous version reverted to: 08:21, 23 September 2007 Then repeatedly inserting incorrect "Jewish" nationality to replace correct "Austrian". Article includes Category: Jewish Scolar already.


  • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning. How? 1st: Anonymous (in contrast to almost all other editors of this article), 2nd: changing ip-numbers, 3rd: editing anonymously for the sole purpose of this one edit. Clearly knowing that he/she is doing wrong.

I ask for permanent article protection against logged-out-edits. (Of all 41 editors of this article, only the troublemaker and three others were not logged in. Judging from the stubbornness, morosity and the long time endurance of the editor, peace will not be found otherwise. Excuse my righteous anger :-) WaldiR (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No violation. Stale, and it needs to be more than three reverts in 24 hours. --Selket Talk 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just found the correct place for my request. --WaldiR (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Chenyangw reported by User:Cumulus Clouds (Result: 24 hours)


This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on this article in attempting to revert it to this same diff. 3 different editors in 48 hours have reverted this back to a neutral nonbiased version but this editor has continued to revert back after his 4th edit is more than 24 hours old. This is the only article this user edits and this is the only edit this user makes. Discussion on the talk page has proved unproductive with this editor being unwilling to engage in dialogue about neutral phrasing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. 3RR is not an entitlement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:NuclearVacuum reported by User:24.77.204.120 (Result:24 for both)

NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [65]


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gliese_581_c&action=history


  • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. - both users. There is no valid reason whatsoever to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Andyvphil reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: Stale. )

Barack Obama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:56, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ revert "bold" deletion of Ayers")
  2. 23:24, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Claim that there is consensus to omit Ayers from this article is bogus.")
  3. 13:06, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "undo deletions performed by edit warring hagiographers")

Although not strictly a violation of 3RR (the editor in question waited 24 hours and 10 minutes before performing the same revert again), this is still a clear case of edit warring (the reason for 3RR in the first place), and for exactly the same material as he was previously blocked for a week. These particular edits are both contentious and tendentious, and violate WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the third revert wouldn't have violated 3RR even if were within 24 hours of the first. Takes four to do that, so there was no reason for me to "wait". I just happpen to get in from work about the same time every day. Anyway, if you look at the talk page you will find that Scjessey offered seven alternatives for the treatment of Bill Ayers in Barack Obama and got virtually no support for his preferred option (#1) of no mention at all of the former Weatherman in Obama's bio. Despite the ongoing discussion and majority opposition to his course of action (even Scjessey had given up on #1 in favor of an excessively anodyne #3) Shem decided it was time to initiate WP:BRD by deleting all mention of Ayers from the page.[76]. BRD of course allows for "R" (my first edit above) as well as "B" and is supposed to be followed by "D", not immediate repetition of "B" until it sticks. Both Kossak4Truth and I have restored Ayers to the page, and the minority of editors (the poll was quite clear in it's result -- "no mention" got maybe two votes out of about 20) who want no mention of Ayers have edit warred it off. And as I speak, it is still off, since I won't violate 3RR (and indeed have not violated 2RR) to restore it. A sockpuppet IP reported me for "violating 3RR" a bit further up this page on the basis of one revert, and now Scjessey wants me blocked for three (not four) in 25. He has himself made three reverts in the last 17 hours. He is clearly engaging in knowing abuse of process...as can be seen by examining Scjessey's own edits:
  1. 00:00, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "rm original research")
  2. 20:08, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Campaign */ - restored original section title of "U.S. Senate campaign" - weird that it should've been changed in the first place")
  3. 20:13, 5 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217381741 by The Rogue Penguin - restore image order (can't have people's backs facing text, looks weird)")
  4. 02:18, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */ rm absolutely ludicrous categories")
  5. 10:29, 6 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 217474873 by Foxcloud (talk) - rv category insanity")
Andyvphil (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think an article ban would be better than blocking. Andyvphil, you haven't had one single edit that lasted. You've been reverted by numerous users. Do you think it's time to quit (editing that article, I don't mean Wikipedia)? There must be something wrong with your edits if you're being reverted all the time. Not everyone is a vandal or an edit warrer, do you realise this? No violation by either but I think a voluntary article ban for both user's would save them from being blocked. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but even a cursory glance at the edit summaries of my edits above will see there is no edit warring on my part. Two of those edits concern minor formatting issues, and the other two concern miscategorizations. Furthermore, you will see from the article's talk page that I am engaged in a lengthy consensus-building exercise, which I initiated, and in which Andyvphil has taken almost no part it. I filed this report because Andyvphil was obstructing the consensus-building process with identical contentious edits concerning the material being discussed, rather than revert any of those edits myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure your reverts were good reverts and my reverts were bad reverts. In your mind.

Noroton has for several weeks vigorously pursued the dispute resolution process and has been tireless in refuting the bogus arguments of Scjessey and others that it is somehow inappropriate to clearly describe Ayers in "Obama's" article. There is little reason for me to duplicate his thankless and unrewarded effort, though I have chimed in where I have had something to add.

To repeat, as I've pointed out, since Scjessey offered seven options for treating Ayers in the Early Life section of Barack Obama (which was not how the subject came to be discussed, contrary to Scjessey's implication) both the mention there and the mention in the Presidential Campaign sections have been removed by the hagigraphic clique which "owns" the article with no regard for the ongoing discussion of how to treat the subject, which discussion has decisively rejected Scjessey's preferred option of deleting all mention of Ayers. I's been six months since the clique first deleted my contribution to the article of the information, cited to the NYTimes, that Obama's pastor and church were Afrocentric and highly political (this was before the videos hit and brought the significance of those facts to national attention) and I've had plenty of time to conclude that AGF-based effort is wasted on the likes of Scjessey. I'm obliged by the rules of Wikipedia not to say what I really think of them, but I'm not obliged to conceed their ownership of the page. Andyvphil (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody plans on doing anything here, I'm going to suggest closing it as moot, since 24 hours has passed and neither party has edited the article. --B (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have every intention of restoring mention of Ayers name to Barack Obama, in accord with NPOV. Not mentioning Ayers has only minority support, but I would not be dissuaded even if the local claque of Obama campaign volunteers mustered a local majority. "Rough consensus" is determined after examaining the qualty of the arguments, and theirs are indefensible. Andyvphil (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't think I've ever seen such an emphatic declaration of the intent to edit war before. Incredible arrogance. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You're in the minority, Scjessey. You cannot claim consensus. Furthermore, Anonymous Dissident (an admin) has clearly stated that the material can be included without violating WP:BLP if neutrally written and reliably sourced. Since you wrote Options No. 2 through No. 6 on Ayers, I think you'll concede that they're neutrally written and there is abundant RS material out there. The only problem is deciding which of the multitude of reliable sources should be cited, and taking care of edit warring POV pushers like you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is stale unless someone wishes to submit a new report with fresh diffs. And, guys, please take the discussion elsewhere. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Dvaaeg reported by User:Aramgar (Result: 24 hour block; suspected sockpuppet)

  • Previous version reverted to: [77]
  • The edit summary provided on this diff indicates that this is an established user who prefers to engage in Plague-style edit-warring under a series of disposabe SPAs.

The user has not been active after the 3RR notification, therefore it is reasonable to assume s/he has been offline and unable to become aware of the warning. If they persist, please make a new report and make an explicit reference to this one. --Gutza T T+ 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If my assessment is incorrect, please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to review and/or reopen this issue. --Gutza T T+ 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: I have blocked the user for 24 hours as a holding action since I believe that this may be a new sock of a sockpuppeteer who I blocked a while ago (namely Aegeanhawk (talk · contribs)). I suggest that the best way to establish this would be to take the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. An admin with checkuser privileges would be better able than I to determine whether this is, as suspected, a sockpuppet. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I defer to that judgement, my original assessment has been based on taking facts at face value. --Gutza T T+ 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I support the 24-hour block. There are not quite enough edits to show that Dvaaeg is a sock, from behavioral evidence alone (he has only 7 contributions). An initial impression is that he wants to deny any recognition to the Republic of Macedonia (which WP no longer requires to be denoted as FYROM), or to allow Slavic names to be included in the articles on Greek towns like Florina. This was also the pattern of edits of Aegeanhawk. I don't see any proof yet that they are the same person, but we should keep an open mind. If checkuser finds this person to be the same editor, then an indefinite block of Dvaaeg would be indicated. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TragedyStriker reported by User:Kww (Result: 24 hour block )


TragedyStriker is virtually an SPA promoting Zachary Jaydon. After attempting unsuccessfully to put include him as a mouseketeer, he has recently come up with some fairly obscure paper sources to justify the inclusion. Consensus among other editors is that the change can only be included after someone other than TragedyStriker has verified the information. TragedyStriker seems quite unwilling to accept this. Kww (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

TragedyStriker is me, and a Wiki editor interested in Zachary Jaydon. I am not a SPA, and not an artist at all. The sources are not obscure at all, but Disney Channel Magazines; official sources from the very television station that broadcasted the show. There are also a NUMBER of online sources that have been deleted by 3 editors, one of whom maintains a hate website on the subject. I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. It seems ludacris that I am being told that an "uninterested" editor has to reinclude this information, when it goes completely against the spirit and policies of Wiki. Assuming good faith is the very backbone of Wiki, and it's very discouraging to run into editors like this. I have provided everything that this select few have asked for and at this point, all of it has been pushed aside. If I am taking the initiative to research the sources to create a more informative and more accurate article, I don't think it's too much to ask for other editors to take a small amount of time to look at the same sources provided if they have any questions. Please advise.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For those watching: the "hate website" that TragedyStriker mentions is real: this article is an example page. I don't know if I would characterize it as a "hate" website, but I can see why he objects to it. I believe that is published by User:thegingerone (based on this statement by her), but she has not edited the article during this recent dispute.
I also have a hard time reading I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. as being anything but a threat to use meatpuppets to bypass blocks. If he has scanned the articles, why doesn't he send them to one of the editors that is insisting on validating the sources?
Kww (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Result - I have blocked TragedyStrike for 24 hours for edit warring. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say that I support the result. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)