Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Whisper1234 reported by User:Shoy (Result: protected)[edit]

Whisper number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whisper1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like edit-warring to keep a promotional link in the article. shoy 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And extremely inane edit-warring at that. Page protected by User:Flyguy649. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Milsorgen reported by User:Aboutmovies (Result: 8 hours)[edit]

Tillamook, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Milsorgen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Listed editor continues to revert three other editors to include a person in the notable residents section of this town. Has ignored warnings, and now seems to be taunting the editors. Oregon consensus has been don’t add them unless they are a blue link. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Adraeus reported by User:Serendipodous (Result:31 hours )[edit]

Solar System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adraeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Adraeus has been conducting an edit war on Solar System. He has also been combative and aggressive and engaged in personal attacks on my talk page. Serendipodous 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You 4th diff links to this AN3 page, but I looked at the hist and there is another revert he did recently, so 31 hour block. RlevseTalk 00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed diff 4 anyway. Serendipodous 11:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:66.158.4.69 reported by User:Arzel (Result:24 hours to IP )[edit]

Debbie_Schlussel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.158.4.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]


  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • 5th revert: [6]

A short explanation of the incident.

Not sure if I did this correctly, so sorry in advance. This user continues to insert material in violation of BLP policies. Arzel (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Funeral reported by User:192.45.72.26 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Guns N' Roses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Funeral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: N/A, this is an experienced user and knows what he is doing.

This user seems to not respect other editor's edits what-so-ever. Instead, he just reverts edits as if this page belongs to him, and him only. I've made changes to try and satisfy him, added citations, etc. He just brings up NOR, NPOV and talks about edit wars. It is this type of editor who believes others' edits are not as worthy, that instigates edit wars, and makes Wikipedia an unpleasant experience. Check out this uncivil discussion, with himself maybe? [12] Now him and this anon (himself?) gang up on other editors to keep the page exactly as he wants. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protected. John Reaves 00:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the 142.167 IP is not mine (see this diff in my userspace: [13]). I've also contacted the reporting user to try and reach a comprimise, which included asking him not to revert me [14]. When I "just bring up" WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:EW, I feel I'm perfectly right to do so; the user originally used no sources in his edits and he later proclaimed who the most famous line-up of Guns N' Roses are. Which is why I linked to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Funeral 00:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What? Is your memory not functioning? You were the one who brought up the words famous first [15], and I tried to please you by changing my edit. You don't discuss things, from your edit history you just go around reverting many edits which are not your own. You don't appear to have any sense of compromise. I clarified the statement, and started to add citations that show that in popular media they are referred to (wrongly or rightly so) as the original lineup. Still you reverted. So you were intersted in compromise?? I doubt it. Users like yourself should get a nice week ban for all your reversions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, they were the most famous line-up of the band, but that's still considered point of view. I didn't mean to say we should put that in the article. And I deserve a band for reverting a lot of/mostly vandalism? Sounds fair. Funeral 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The thing is Funeral, is I don't know if you have a good sense of what is really vandalism. Edits that "Funeral doesn't like" do not necessarily constitute vandalism. I was there trying to satisfy you, you were making good points. I added citations, and then all I get is these harsh comments that you make towards me and your anon friend. What is the need to act like that dude? I am on here trying to make some edits and I get accused of being a fanboy or of fancruft. Please be professional. It is common usage in the media to rever to those guys as the "original line-up". I didn't say these guys ARE THE ORIGINAL LINEUP, I merely clarified. Most people, fans or not, who know Guns N' Roses, do think of these five as the original members. The article is very precise in how the group was formed, but there is no disaster with adding the sentence I did. You should really be more open-minded to others' edits, or you just get this needless battling, with people who probably just want good articles like I assume you do! Assume good faith, and try being friendly to new people on here. Man... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
But your citations didn't actually support your claim: you just linked to a news article which referred to the 1986-1989 band as the original line-up - you weren't actually supporting your claim that they are "often referred to as the 'original lineup'". Funeral 01:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, then you could of simply asked me to look for more or better citations if you had issue with them. You don't have to just wipe out others' edits and make disparaging remarks like "fan boy".
Hey folks. This page isn't really for disputes. Could you move this to your talk pages or the article talk page or something? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DeathMark reported by User:penubag (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Advance Wars: Days of Ruin by DeathMark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


This is inverted, 11th was first revert:

  • 1st revert: [16] (ip sock)
  • 2nd revert: [17]
  • 3rd revert: [18]
  • 4th revert: [19]
  • 5th revert: [20]
  • 6th revert: [21]
  • 7th revert: [22]
  • 8th revert: [23]
  • 9th revert: [24]
  • 10th revert: [25]
  • 11th revert: [26]
  • there may be some more I missed
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [27] and [28]

A short explanation of the incident. Deathmark is continuously reverting edits mad by 3 other editors. After 2 warnings, still continues even after consensus was reached by the 3 editors. penubag  01:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, a mess. Give me some time to process this one. Will get it ASAP. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - penubag  01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This was a pretty extensive edit war, with DeathMark reverting against several other users. As such, I've blocked him for 24 hours. Some of his opponents in the edit war have also reverted quite a bit, especially Comandante42‎. I've warned him not to do so in the future, and left a less stern reminder for Geoff B. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:WebHamster reported by User:Skyring (Result: 8 hours; reporter blocked for 6 hours)[edit]

Alan Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


One of the "wikignome" tasks I enjoy is improving the overall standard of the project by setting wikidates to either International Dating or American Dating format, as per the Manual of Style. I noticed that the birthdate in Alan Parsons was displaying incorrectly, and corrected it. User:WebHamster reverted it, and revealed in an extraordinary series of abusive messages that he was unaware of how date preferences work, whilst accusing me of the same, ignoring my explanations and suggestions that he inform himself as to the MoS guidelines and the template instructions. I have been doing this minor work for some time, as anyone may see, and I keep myself informed. Given the attitude of this user, as shown in the following diffs, I request some action be taken.

  1. [29]
  2. [30]
  3. [31]
  4. [32]
  5. [33]

Pete (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone also perusing those diffs will also notice that Skyring has also breached the 3RR limit. I perceived his changes as vandalism due to his deleting the {{Template:Death date and age}} in the infobox and hard-coding the date in spite of the fact that the preferred method in the musical artist infobox is to use the template. I considered this to be vandalism and reverted accordingly. If an interested admin will also note that I did not revert any of the hard-coded dates which were changed by Skyring. In messages to me I try to explain, unsuccessfully, that template derived dates display differently depending upon user preferences or system settings. Also that WP:MOS#date does not applied to template derived dates, and it most certainly doesn't recommend deleting template inclusions in favour of a hard-coded world date format. --WebHamster 14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears that WebHamster is unaware of the documentation of the template he uses, which contradicts his forceful statements here and elsewhere. --Pete (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course I'm aware of the documentation, though I would like you to narrow down in it where you think I've gone wrong, then whilst you're at it point me at the related bit in WP:MOS#date that justifies what you are doing deleting the recommended templated age/date code. I consider your changes with regard to deleting the template inclusion as out and out vandalism based on a skewed understanding of MoS. Whilst you have a minute I recommend you re-read the link I gave you with regard to the "Born" element of the musical artist infobox--WebHamster 15:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • None of the edits qualify as simple vandalism, which is to say vandalism that would be obvious to someone who has never edited the page before. WebHamster has violated 3RR and is blocked for 8 hours. Skyring, while he has not strictly violated 3RR, has definitely used reverting instead of discussion and is blocked for 6 hours for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pointoflight reported by User:Propol (Result: Warning and protected)[edit]

James Philip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pointoflight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is also a suspected sock puppet of blocked User:Joehazelton, is a single-purpose account, and has made personal attacks as well. I appreciate your help. Propol (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This editor uses the abuses of the process bully his point of view. Further more, 3 revert rule don't apply to badly written "Attack bios" masquerading as "Encyclopedic".

This whole charge of Propol sockpuppet is an "abuse of process".Pointoflight (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just left a warning for him. Propol, he does have a point about that section, which really is problematic BLP-wise. Can you please find a way to rewrite it, so that it relies only on very good sources, and is written in a less breathless tone? I see that someone other than Pointofflight has objected to it on the talk page too. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've also protected the page. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:24.60.254.74 reported by User:Atlan (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Boston College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Boston College Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.60.254.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to:

Boston College: 1/25/2008 15:28
Boston College Eagles: 1/25/2008 15:48


Boston College:

Boston College Eagles:

  • Diff of 3RR warning: User is well aware of 3RR, as his edit summaries and talk page point out, but feels the rule doesn't apply to him.

The anon has a history of edit warring over Boston College related articles and was blocked for it earlier this month. In this case, the anon keeps putting back a long list of lyrics of songs, which I have removed because no background information or any indication of their notability and relation to the article is provided, per WP:NOT#LYRICS. The anon feels I should go out of my way to save the lyrics (put them elsewhere and then link them as he says it), while he is content to sit back and do nothing of the sort. Atlan (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

48 hours. --B (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Enverite reported by User:Pairadox (Result: 8 hours)[edit]

G&D's Ice Cream Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Enverite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


While these may not appear to be strict reverts, I feel a close examination will show otherwise. Enverite (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is suspected of being a sock of PeaceThruSuperiorFirepower (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). The apparent goal of these editors is to give Davis Roberts equal credit for starting G&D's and/or deny George Stroup sole billing. Their only edits are in relation to this article. PeaceThruSuperiorFirepower (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) had previously reverted twice in the last 24 hours, here and here. Enverite then pick up the task. It's only when their combined reverts approach the fourth in 24 hours does Enverite switch to blanking the paragraph about the founders entirely. Either combined with the suspected sock or alone, it seems clear the intent to violate 3RR is there.

A SSP report has been filed but not acted upon at this time. 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't smell right. I don't think either of these versions are true. If it was all one guy doing everything, then why are there two names in the brand? Something's missing. BETA 02:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:21stCenturyBuoy reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

George Galloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 21stCenturyBuoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Constantly adding defamatory material, in violation of BLP, against consensus of other editors, and despite warnings from another editor. RolandR (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours with a strong warning on BLP issues. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
User had already been blocked by another admin 20 minutes earlier, for "edit warring". So this block, although announced on the Usertalk page, does not appear in the block log. RolandR (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oopsie. Still, edit warring was the same summary as I would have given, so no harm done. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Alaexis (Result: Protected)[edit]

Second Chechen War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pietervhuis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


The reverts were not to this version exactly but this text was removed every time.


Previous version reverted to: 21:17, 27 January 2008

Again, it's not a simple revert but essentially it's the undoing of this edit (please examine this carefully).

The first warning was given after the user reverted the article 4 times in a day:

Alæxis¿question? 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Page protected. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:VegardNorman reported by User:EliasAlucard (Result: No violation)[edit]

Assyrian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VegardNorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


User:VegardNorman is POV-pushing a semi-religious/ethnic agenda by using dubious sources, taking quotes out of context, etc., in order to attack the ethnicity of the Assyrian people. His sources are for example, an indopedia link, which is a direct copy of an old revision of the Aramaeans article.[34] He's also citing Megalommatis, a fringe web-publicist who has claimed that modern Europeans are Assyrians[35] (another attack on the Assyrian identity). User:VegardNorman is also involved in pushing his agenda and revert wars on other articles, such as Western Assyrians (which he's trying to redirect to Western Syriacs), Aramaeans, and so on. He should be given a 24h block to cool him down. EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Fourth revert was not by the same user, so no block. Blocks are also not used to cool people down. If you believe that the IP is VegardNorman as well, list a code E case on WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand reported by User:Colourinthemeaning (Result: No violation made out)[edit]

Gilo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I have tried to come to a compramise and incorporate a short explination of the very contentious legal dispute but every addition and new source i have added has simply been removed and replaced with only the view of the Israeli Government. This has become a nationalist POV page which doesnt so much as mention the view of the rest of the world or the international community. Gilo has a very contentious legal foundation which has come to the worlds and medias attention. I think it is important to note this and not simply the view of one government - who, at least in this case, uses the term 'neighborhood' to conjure up images of an area of a city having been rightfully inhabited for a long time, when this is simply not the case. He has made more than 4 full reverts in less than 12 hours and something like 12 edits in 12 hours which further reverted valid additions and sources. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The first alleged revert and the previous version are the same. It is not proven that the first alleged revert is in fact a revert. There does not seem to be any further edit warring on the page as things stand, but if it restarts, I would recommend WP:RFPP for an expedient solution. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Atlan reported by User:YOUR_NAME (Result: Malformed)[edit]

Boston College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


  • 1st revert: 20:06, 27 January 2008 Atlan
  • 2nd revert: 19:45, 27 January 2008 Atlan
  • 3rd revert: 13:26, 27 January 2008 Atlan
  • 4th revert: 19:33, 26 January 2008 Atlan
  • 5th revert: 14:47, 26 January 2008 Atlan

"Atlan" continues to delete relevent information without providing any reason. He has misinterpreted the WP rule regarding song lyrics, and is using that as an excuse to randomly delete information. He constantly monitors the Boston College page and seems to treat it as his own personal webpage. He has flatly refused to engage in any discussion of the matter (when I suggested he start a discussion to explain why he keeps randomly deleting information, he replied "do it yourself.") He has also refused to compromise. When I suggested that we could compromise by posting the disputed BC fight song lyrics elsewhere and simply linking to them from the main BC page, he just continued to "undo" my changes without compromise or discussion. 170.63.96.108 (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This report is missing most of the relevant information, including the username of the user you are reporting, the diffs of the alleged reverts, the previous version reverted to (which is mandatory), and a link to a warning. Please see below as to how to properly format the report. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just investigated the history of the page, and no four reverts took place within a 24-hour period, so there is no breach of the 3RR anyway. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that this anon was blocked as User:24.60.254.74 for 3RR and disruption (see report 3.13) and is thus evading a block to report me here.--Atlan (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:82.17.183.68 reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Ritchie Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.17.183.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


An anonymous user has been editing the Ritchie Jones article to state that Jones has been allowed a free transfer from Manchester United. They also claim that this has been reported on Manchester United's official television channel, Manchester United TV. However, I have been unable to find a source for this on the internet, and so I reverted the anon's edit. They then undid my edit, stating that I was vandalising the article. After their third revert, I issued them with a 3RR warning, and reverted their edit. They have now reverted my edits for a fourth time in the last seven hours, so I am reporting the issue here. The anon claims to be Jones' agent, but this cannot be verified either, and also represents a Conflict of Interest issue. – PeeJay 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Robertcoogan/User: 210.233.211.96 reported by User:Doczilla (Result: page protected)[edit]

Changeling (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Robertcoogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Robertcoogan has identified him/herself as the anonymous User:210.233.211.96.[36] [37]

A short explanation of the incident. As the edit history[38] shows, he reverted the article 8 times on the 27th and continued reverting on the 28th despite a 3RR warning along the way. The reverts listed above are only those that occurred during the last 24 hours in which the individual edited the article. The 3rd and 4th of those came after the 3RR warning. Doczilla (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have fully protected the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Clyde4210 reported by User:RMHED (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Ares Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Clyde4210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Clyde4210 is in an edit war with an IP, Clyde4210 keeps removing external links and the IP replaces them. RMHED (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours, I would also block the IP for a similar length but it's dynamic. --B (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked and the IP is AOL and I would basically have to range block all of AOL to block him/her. As tempting as that is, some people might complain. If this user continues to disrupt or edits the article during the next 31 hours, please block the new IP or s-protect the article. --B (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Teleomatic reported by User:Octavian history (Result: no block)[edit]

Hajj Amin Elahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Teleomatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

A short explanation of the incident. Octavian history (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC) User Teleomatic has reverted the same section on Hajj Amin Elahi page 4 times within 24 hours. I have warned him many times in the past about the 3RR rule, but he simply deleted my warning. He keeps removing valid citations and will not stop. I need help stoping this guy. Thanks--Octavian history (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this qualifies as 3RR, though I would say that there is an edit war in progress. Teleomatic reported that he checked these citations, and that the given page numbers do not corroborate the assertions made in the article. He tagged the article with {{citecheck}}, and a few days later, removed the citations and replaced them with {{fact}}. Octavian_history has since replaced the {{fact}} tags with the original citations, but this time without the page numbers ([40]). The last such undo of Teleomatic's edits was made by a brand new account, User:Kurdestani ([41]). The article's talk page will quickly reveal that there is an edit war in progress (Octavian_history also received a 3RR warning, from me ([42]); yesterday the article itself was re-posted to AfD. If anyone else would care to weigh in on that article's talk page, it would be appreciated. Also note that one of the warnings Octavian_history gave to Teleomatic was an actual block notification ([43], reposted: [44]; as of this writing, Teleomatic has not received a block). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE Please do not listen to gyrofrog, it absolutely is 3RR. Gyrofrog has a long history of stocking me and attacks my every move. It is 100% obvious that this does qualify as 3RR. --Octavian history (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hence my suggestion that someone else might weigh in... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly believe Gyrofrog is a sockpuppet for Teleomatic. What is 100% obvious is the fact the tele did brake the 3RR rule.--Octavian history (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, This a violation of the 3RR rule Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 16:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Gyrofrog is an admin and has declined to block. No previous version reverted to has been quoted therefore it is not clear that the first edit above is a revert and not a legitimate edit. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It should not matter that he is an admin according to wiki rules, I strongly believe Gyrofrog is a sockpuppet for Teleomatic, plus tel broke the 3RR rules. Just look at history I placed or on the history page. You must act fairly and according to wiki rules.--Octavian history (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a place for discussion. We have considered your report and declined to take any further action. If you believe there are sockpuppets, list them at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. This report is closed (really). Stifle (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi reported by User:Str1977 (Result:No action; Page Protected)[edit]

Procedural note: I have adjusted the title of the article to the correct one. Previously was Rosie O'Donnel, correct one is Rosie O'Donnell. - Philippe | Talk 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the typo. Str1977 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Benjiboi is an editor for almost two years. I have been in trouble with him about this before so he positively knows the rule. If any diff is needed, then this proves that he has been warned before and acknowledged the warning.

Benjiboi is very protective of his cherished version of the Rosie O'Donnel article, trying (for reasons unknown, probably POV) to retain certain not actually relevant information and certain wordings. His behaviour is a also a clear violation of WP:OWN as he repeatedly asks those editors to revert to brings to talk to "decide" the issue (apparently with him as final arbiter) without posting on talk himself. He did this to me (even though we have been through the issues some time last year), he did this to another editor today. He also uses false statements in his edit summaries (talking about changing a quote when there is no quote) while ignoring other people's edit summaries.

Str1977 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have protected the page due to edit warring, but I am recusing myself from blocks on this issue. - Philippe | Talk 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a good move. Now the perpetrator has his way in any case. Str1977 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As I've explained to you - ad nauseum - administrators protect the version of the page that's there when they get there. We don't revert to get to a different version. See the protection policy for more info. I stand by my actions. - Philippe | Talk 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I need no explanation for that. I know how things work. Still, I stand by my criticism. If you recuse yourself, then stay recused. Str1977 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I will accept a certain knowledge on that particular article as I have personally gone through most every bit of that article sourcing items that needed it and verifying interesting items being removed as a part of vandalism or POV-pushing in any direction. I don't see that I have prohibited anyone from editing but I will take a firm stance against removing sources, altering quotes to switch out "pedophilia" for "child abuse" and otherwise violating BLP issues I will also do the same and have done so on other BLP. Str1977 and I have been on this page before on nearly identical content with this article because they were edit warring and, as in this case, continued to do so until encouraged to utilize talk pages before again deleting content and altering quotes etc. I turned to 3rr last time as a last resort because no amount of reasoning would convince them that a press release and a right-wing blog were rather poor sources. The article remain stable for some time then they appeared again to change content to show the subject in a less than stellar light. On the article's talk pages seems filled with this user's determination to prove O'Donnell is anti-Catholic. I have consistently persisted that reliable sources were and are the best way to demonstrate this and have stated so and remained extremely communicative with anyone wishing to have open discussion. Str1977's has tended to simply delete material until compelled to dialog. I have also show a good faith effort, I believe, to trim material and add clarity so content was more neutral and hopefully more acceptable. In fairness I can see that Str1977 and Mamalujo, another ardent pro-Catholic editor would be upset about assertions of pedophile priests existing but that is the subject of Deliver Us from Evil and that is what was discussed. Benjiboi 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please also see user's post to my talk page[45]. Benjiboi 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, don't try to switch the subject. That your accusations of other people changig quotes is false is beside the point here - you have violated the 3R-rule. No, you continue by personal attacks on mine and another editors religion and issue nonsensical, off-topic demands. Str1977 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I take strong offense that you have continued to claim that I have lied/deceived and engage in personal attacks. Those were sourced quotes (both in quotation marks) you both were changing to edit out "pedophilia". You were also continually removing sources which I continue to see as problematic. I never attacked you or your religion and, in fact, stated I think it's a diservice to Catholics to characterize O'Donnell as anti-Catholic as that mitigates the damage actual anti-Catholics do. I'm also not changing the subject nor have I "issue nonsensical, off-topic demands". On my talk page you also wrote "Probably some POV nonsense. But please don't bother explaining as I actually don't care." Well I do care and have worked many months to improve the article and add sourcing, clarity and to correct errors. If something on the article is wrong we should correct it but that doesn't mean we change history to our liking. If something she said isn't true then we should produce a WP:RS to demonstrate that and figure out how to neutrally present both aspects. "O'Donnell said X but Y is actually true." Benjiboi 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if all this were true (and it isn't), you still are not allowed to revert six times. Get it? Now stop this futile discussion. 3RR applies to all, even if they think they are in the right. Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is NOT a place for discussion. There are multiple ways to stop edit wars, which include blocking users, protecting the page, and hitting with sticks. The page was listed here because there was an edit war, the edit war has been stopped. Please discuss the page on its talk page and user conduct on the users' talk pages, an RFC, or elsewhere. Report closed. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not discussing, I am merely protesting admin misbehaviour. You get your facts wrong: not a page but a user has been reported not just for edit warring but for violating the 3RR. Apparently that doesn't mean anything anymore. Inserting a passage into the 3RR rules afterwards to justify this behaviour after the fact is also quite underhanded. End. Str1977 (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:202.103.242.100 reported by User:Precious Roy (Result: page protected)[edit]

Maddox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 202.103.242.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Contentious unsourced content removed from BLP article is being reverted by various IP editors. Though these four edits took place over 28 hours rather than 24, it obviously violates the spirit of the rule. Precious Roy (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Colourinthemeaning reported by User:Robertert (Result: Protected)[edit]

Gilo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME This user went ahead and reported someone else yesterday and is now doing exactly the opposite thing.

A short explanation of the incident. Robertert (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC) They insist on repeating one side of an issue instead of just giving the link to an article on Wikipedia that deals with both sides. --RobertRobertert (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the second time I've seen this page here in a very short space of time. Protected. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Jboi11x reported by User:Cobaltbluetony (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Lolcat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jboi11x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


User insists his link must be added in talk page then persists in reverting anyone who removes it/ without discussion These are this account's ONLY edits. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Farsiwan22 reported by User:Kitabi420 (Result:24h for both)[edit]

Ahmad_Zahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Farsiwan22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [46]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [51]

A short explanation of the incident. Kitabi420 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) This user continues to ignore discussions and refuses to cease pushing POV based edits. Furthermore, he is a well known sockpuppeteer who has hampered the efforts of most honest editors on various articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitabi420 (talkcontribs) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Both users blocked 24 hours. For the record, Kitabi420's reverts are: 21:25 1/28/08, 17:04 1/29/08, 19:55 1/29/08, and 20:28 1/29/08. POV-pushing is not vandalism, so reverting it is not an exception to 3RR. After the block expires I hope both users will pursue discussion instead of edit warring, rather than simply in addition to it. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Dlabtot (Result: Not a violation, only 3 reverts given)[edit]

Deadly nightshade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)



Edit warring on Deadly nightshade.