Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive75

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

Noticeboard archives


User:PlayFreebirdNow reported by User:Chan Yin Keen (Result: 1 week)[edit]

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

  1. 01:09, 18 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 219757209 by E. Klieg (talk)")
  2. 13:54, 18 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 220104696 by Falcon9x5 (talk)")
  3. 15:33, 18 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 220145120 by Falcon9x5 (talk)")
  4. 02:11, 19 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 220250906 by Falcon9x5 (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Chan Yin Keen | UserTalk Contribs 02:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Second 3RR violation on the same article in three days. Nasty personal attacks on the article Talk page. I question whether this editor is here to improve the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and User:Bkwillwm reported by User:Aksis (Result: Reporter blocked)[edit]

  • Blocked User:Aksis 24 hours for 3RR violation. Neither Connolley nor Bkwillwm has made more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, but the reporter has. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Majin Takeru reported by User: (Result: Warned)[edit]

user Majin Takeru is going around to as many wikipedia entries as he can to change all Commonwealth English spellings to US English spellings under the pretext that Commonwealth English Spellings are "incorrect" uses of "Old English." Please put a stop to this. Commonwealth English is not improper English.

here's an example:

but there are many other sites he's doing this to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Esimal reported by User:Zara1709 (Result: Already protected)[edit]

  • User:Caranorn had previously mentioned that he would do a report on this, but he has not done this so far, and I am not going to let this slip through. I have been trying to get Esimal into a discussion about the reliability of the sources he uses and his way of quoting them for about a week, see Talk:Religious aspects of Nazism. He has not attempted to discuss the issue, but instead finally resort to calling me a Christian fundamentalist. Of course this would be an issue for Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts; The issue here is the latest escalation:
  • Esimal has been an editor since November 2007 (contributions) and should be aware of the 3-revert-rule. However, he was warned after his 5th by User:Caranorn in the edit summary: 22:00, June 18, 2008, but Esimal continued with a 6th revert.
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by User:Rodhullandemu. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that the page is currently protected. That is the reason why I could not remove inappropriate references like one to a webpage that claims the Third Reich was an Occult-based Order using Magical and Esoteric practices. This is not the article Nazi occultism about obscure interpretations of Nazism; in the article on Nazism such links are wp:fringe. What I wanted to point out was that User:Esimal has broken 3RR in a definite way. The admin who protected the page wrote on the discussion "At this point I have protected the article for three days so that this unseemly behaviour can calm down." [1] He also directed "the two principal editors to WP:3O". Sorry for spelling this out so directly: But didn't I already provide a third opinion? This wasn't an edit war between User:Esimal and User:Gennarous; User:Caranorn and me also considered Esimal's version not acceptable. I also consider Gennarous' version unacceptable, but that is beside the point. Only User:Esimal has broken 3RR. I have reason to fear that this "this unseemly behaviour" will not calm down after 3 days, because it appears to be sided at User:Esimal. As User:The Evil Spartan has pointed out at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Esimal: "You will note that on at least two occasions, the user has violated 3RR but has not been blocked due to page-protection (I always find this to be a travesty when this happens". On the other hand, since there is already an RFC on the conduct of Esimal, the issue can hopefully be resolved there. It's only bad that I can't edit Nazism in the meantime. Zara1709 (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kanabekobaton reported by User:Shawn in Montreal (Result: No violation)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [2]

  • 1st revert: [3]
  • 2nd revert: [4]
  • 3rd revert: [5]
  • 4th revert: [6]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [7]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [8]
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Amazing. Okay, well, I've just reverted him again. I'll keep on doing it until there are enough in a 24 hour, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Species8473 (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks )[edit]

Note that User:UKPhoenix79 also was involved in the edit war, I'm not reporting him because he has been contructive on the article talk page. User: on the other hand has removed the 3RR notice on his talk page, and vandalised my user page and talk page.12

Andon blocked the IP and I blocked another user whom was edit warring too. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fire Elf reported by User:Maitch (Result: 24 hour block)[edit]

Has reverted Template:Infobox Simpsons season episode list five despite despite not having taken part in the discussion in which is was decided to do that particular change. --Maitch (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Fire Elf for 24 hours for violating 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Frogacuda reported by User:Never Cry Wolf (Result: Borderline no vio)[edit]

User has engaged in a serious edit war over the last day or so, reverting the article no less than five times, using both his active username and what I belive is an anonymous IP linking back to his account ( Other users have attempted to resolve the dispute[9], and still others have asked them both to cool down and to please be mindful of the 3RR rule[10], to which the user responded in a rather rude manner to the user[11], as well, in further replies, he stated that "he wrote the article"[12]. He's also insulted the anon several times as well[13].

Result - I do see edit warring but I can't really see 4 reverts in 24 hours. No vio. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines reported by Abtract (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [14]
  • 1st revert: [15] 19 June 20.29
  • 2nd revert: [16] 19 June 20.57
  • 3rd revert: [17] 19 June 21.08
  • 4th revert: [18] 19 June 21.17
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [19] 19 June 21.13

If I could have seen any other way to prevent Alastair continuing with his bullying ways I would not have gone down this route. Please read the talk page and the article page history to see how this editor believes he owns this article, will not allow edits other than his and is constantly belligerent and intransigent. This is doubly sad because he clearly has some expertise in this area. Abtract (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, see the (unresolved) AN/I filed against him ([20]) for discussion of his history, with diffs. Ilkali (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h for 3RR and other weirdness on that talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Abtract (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kanabekobaton reported by User:Skeezix1000 (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

User:Kanabekobaton insists on removing 96th Grey Cup from the template. English is perhaps not his first language (given some of the comments on his talk page), so perhaps he is unwilling/unable to engage in a discussion on the talk page to try and get consensus for his controversial edits. Nonetheless, his level of language proficiency does not entitle him to constantly revert the article in violation of WP:3RR. Three other editors are being kept busy babysitting the template due to this user's insistence on his edit. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The four reverts listed above are within a 24-hour period. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Steve0999 reported by User:Ssilvers (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [24]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]
Re-addition of the same material 4 times over 5 hours. Blocked for 12 hours and requested to discuss the matter on the talk pages. Kbthompson (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ioannes Pragensis reported by User:Ottava Rima (Result: 2nd opinion needed )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [30]

I mention this because the user refuses to accept any changes to the page and has inserted a peacock term/unfounded claim of the storming of the Bastille being the most important moment, especially when the other 99.9% of the world had individual events just as or more important to them going on during the century. If you notice, the first two reverts were him imposing his view on Christopher Smart and George Washington's portrait, the second was him reverting a discussed formatting correction, which can be found here. The user is editing warring and causing problems on the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Result - Not a 3RR violation but still edit warring. I need a 2nd opinion from other admin(s) please. I can't really decide the outcome here, I don't know if a block is warranted. They are edit warring, but I don't know if a block would nip it in the bud. Thoughts? ScarianCall me Pat! 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not want them blocked. However, they will not listen. It would be nice to move the question of inclusionary rules to the page in order to determine who is in and who is out. But I am just a user, and users saying such do not have any weight behind words, thus, they go ignored. I have stepped back and let their recent edit stay as it is. That is how the page was before I, and the stray IP who added the Washington picture, entered, so it isn't a big deal that it will stay there for a while longer. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, both have been edit warring without troubling themselves to discuss the matter on the talk page. O. R. appears marginally more to blame. I don't think either deserves a block at this point William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the diffs, you will see that my second revert was actually to someone who goes through and checks many at a time, and it was more of a mistake on his part than an actual problem. I have only reverted against the previously mentioned user once and then explained why it was a mistake on his part to revert. The last revert was editing something that was discussed with another user and had nothing to do with the original content, yet moved it back to his prefered diff. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Update. There is some discussion going on at Talk:18th century, but editors are still reverting there. I left a note on the article's Talk page, and I suggest keeping this 3RR complaint open until there's evidence that the revert war has stopped. If they are aware that admins are looking at the situation perhaps they will be more cautious. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the recent edits have really been a "revert", but mostly working with what is on the talk page. Modernist stepped in and is participating on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:MSJapan reported by User:Ottava Rima (Result: No violation)[edit]

The above user is reverting verifiable information that the user knows is included in both of the major biographies of Christopher Smart and in his complete works with attributions to Christopher Smart as a Freemason. The above user is pushing a POV and editing warring while ignoring WP:V. He is also using the "3RR" as some kind of game to justify his editing warring here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More edit warring on the same topic, different page, reverting verified and factual statements to misstatements about a source: here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Neither party has reverted more than three times. Those who want to read more about this dispute should look at WP:ANI#Ottava Rima. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
As many Admin have stated before, 3 is not a magical line to cross, but a spirit of an action. It is clear that he seeks to edit war. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tirpse77 reported by User:Ashley Y (Result: AAAA - Protected for one week)[edit]

Time reported: 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert war with User:Itzse. AFAICT Itzse is within 3RR. —Ashley Y 02:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Per WP:AAAA. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have also blocked Itzse and Tirpse for 24 hours each. Both violated 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat! 10:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have unblocked these two users. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ceha reported by User:Kruško Mortale (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Time reported: 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


User Ceha for a few times deleted relaible sources per WP:RS as well as some sourced parts of the article.

Other users also warned him to that.

For example he keeps irrationally deleting this part all the time without any rational explanation:

The ICTY effectively determined the war's nature to be international between Croatia and Bosnian and Herzegovina in numerous verdicts against Croat political and military leaders.

The source is: [37]

That is just one example I can post other examples as well if you want me to do that. Cheers. Kruško Mortale (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ceha (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have both been blocked for twenty-four hours edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu 14:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: malformed)[edit]

Time reported: 13:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [38]

'Comment' I have tried to communicate with this fellow but he/she does not respond. The quotation he is changing is actually from Sir Denzil Ibbeston's Book , and not an opinion but a verifiable fact from a reliable source.

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Those reverts all have the same diff parameter. It is not clear that four reverts were made. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Matthew reported by User:Bignole (Result: Protected, Refered to AN/I)[edit]

  • Time reported 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually request a page protection as, if the closing Admin will view the history of the page in question, there has been a consistent edit war taking place since June 19 of the use of this image. There are at least 3 parties included in this edit war, one of which is another Administrator. I warned both Matthew and the Administrator (User:Edokter) on their talk page, and left a message on the talk page of the article to cease all reverts till the discussion was over. Matthew and User:U-Mos failed to adhere to my plea, as a result I reported Matthew and U-Mos has reached his 3rd revert for the 24 hour period. I think it would be in all parties best interest if the page was protected so that a discussion could take place civily. Preferably, protected for a few days so that Matthew, if blocked, could have a chance to discuss without feeling like he has "lost" the debate when the page is reverted back after any protection (if one occurs) is placed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My edits are exempt from 3RR (see here). Matthew (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected there is an ongoing edit war regarding an interpretation of the non-free content criteria. I'm protecting the page and refering this to AN/I to get more input. --Selket Talk 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See Selket's posting at WP:ANI#The Stolen Earth and NFCC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that the ANI discussion has led to a IfD nomination for the image, I suggest that this 3RR item might be closed. I'd propose that the article remain under full protection until the IfD closes unless the participants in the war will agree to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Trlager reported by User:Pbroks13 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Time reported: 06:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hours; also warned not to spam any more copyrighted-links. · AndonicO Engage. 13:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Arthur Rubin(Result: Already blocked)[edit]

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 07:21, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "I hope you aren't referring to my edit")
  2. 07:31, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "WTF are you smoking? "Recurring Series" certainly is out of place here, and shouldn't be capitalized anyway. And my edit did nothing else but alter the positions of Carey and Barker appropriately")
  3. 07:40, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "this isn't vandalism, it's constructive editing against your incompetent meddling, and I'll fight you to keep it")
  4. 07:42, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 220725387 by Daedalus969 (talk)")
  5. 07:44, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 220725525 by Work permit (talk)")
  6. 07:47, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "I have friends in Admin. I see the constructive edits of mine you've reverted as "vandalism", you're getting fried.")
  7. 07:48, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 220725986 by AnnaJGrant (talk)")
  8. 07:50, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 220726091 by AnnaJGrant (talk)")
  9. 07:55, 21 June 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Seriously, people, put your hatred toward me aside and look: How does "1972—Returning Series" make sense? HOW?")

User:Nitraven reported by User:watchdogb (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

Time reported: 18:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • No need for 3RR warning as this user is very experienced and has been in wikipedia for over a year and has done over 6000 main space edits and over 7000 total edits. Furthermore, the user regularly points out to wikipedia rules in many situations.

This user has repeatedly added a contested "see also" entry under the guise of reverting vandalism. Watchdogb (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked this user for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Aradic-en reported by User:Kruško Mortale (Result: 24 hr)[edit]

Time reported: 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: I warned him twice not to delete sources, which you can see in edit summary in above links (The sources are relabile per WP:RS). Anyway this is on old user, and he is well aware of the rules. He edits since March 2007 but he is obsessed with topics related to Franjo Tuđman whom he considers to be Croatian hero, superman or smth like that, and doesn't allow any normal co-operation in editing the article. I decided to leave this article because it is impossible to discuss with this man. Rjecina also tried to resolve this situation, but the man still reverts. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The first diff is an edit by an anon editor. Having said that, the user has clearly violated 3RR. 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Enforcing Neutrality reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: Article protected)[edit]

Time reported: 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: All reverts consist of reinsertion of the same material

Comments: The diffs may appear slightly complex, but all reverts include the reinstatement of poorly sourced sentences like "... and maintains that Fatimah was buried in secret at her request, to prevent Abu Bakr and Umar whom she considered to be her father's true enemies from attending the funeral"; "Shias maintain, using Sunni sources, that Fatimah died after Umar had led a party of armed men against Ali's house in Medina and called for Ali and his men to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, who they had decided would take power in the meeting at Saqifah. Umar and Khalid ibn Walid threatened to burn the house down if they did not submit", and so on. ITAQALLAH 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tymek reported by User:Matthead (Result: Protected)[edit]

Time reported: 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected There are enough reverts here by Tymek to break 3RR, but Matthead would be at the same point if it weren't for the providential arrival of two single-purpose IPs to help him revert. (Neither IP has any WP edit except this one time). This appears to be a harmless biographical article which has turned into a political football for German-Polish disputes. As such it could fall under the Digwuren Arbcom restrictions. (Tymek's side of the dispute does possess a certain logic, because there is no source offered to show whether this ethnic German man was personally affected by the expulsion of Germans from Poland after WW 2). If other editors have a better idea what to do, please suggest it. Until then, I'm putting on two weeks of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This closure should not imply that Matthead is using alternate accounts. It's just that to find that one editor violated 3RR you need to believe there were more editors in good standing on the other side, so that none of them had to go over three reverts. SPAs don't yet have standing, good or bad. This is also not a comment on the quality or neutrality of the version that is now protected. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Overlong discussion that ought to continue at Talk:Friedrich Scherfke to have any value for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article on Scherfke was harmless until user Matthead began inserting information about expulsions of Germans. Scherfke himself is largely unknown in Germany, I have a hunch that if I had not created the article, user Matthead would not have heard about him. Anyway, I am not denying sufferings of Germans who were forced to leave their heimats after WW2, it is a sad chapter of history of Europe. But with Scherfke IMO the situation was different. He was a soldier of the Wehrmacht and with his unit was moved to Western Europe, where the British caught him. He was not a victim of expulsion, we do not even know if he wanted to come back to Communist-controlled Poznan after the war, let me remind you that tens of thousands of Polish soldiers decided to settle in Western Europe, as they did not want to live under Communism. Thank you and I am awaiting opinions of other users and user Matthead himself. Tymek (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Opinions are plenty, how about facts instead: The German Wikipedia article on Scherfke was created on 4. Feb. 2006, almost two months before Tymek's wrote about him on en-Wiki on 29 March 2006. On 17 maj 2006, pl-Wiki followed. Same for Ernst Willimowski, his German article was started on 1. Jan. 2005, pl-Wiki followed on 2 maj 2005, and Tymek only on 21 March 2006. See also WP:OWN. And it was an anon from 92856 Orange, California who was inserting information about expulsions of Germans [45] in April 2008. I had first edited the German article and then edited the English one. Then User:Space Cadet edited, followed [46] by an anon from 94203 Sacramento, California, thus four editors had agreed that the expulsions are relevant before Tymek removed for the first time. Then I proposed neutral wording that only mentioned that "At the time, many Germans were victim of" expulsions, without claiming that Scherfke was affected directly, leaving it to the reader to connect the dots. Tymek seemed to have accepted this [47] for at least a month. Yet, several days ago, Tymek suddenly removed, with an anon from Rostock (dynamic IP in the 84.139.2*.* range from Germany biggest ISP) trying to reinsert it four times within three days, only with Tymek always reverting. So much about facts we know. Thus it were 5 editors with "standing" who approved of including the expulsions before Tymek started editwarring to make the article "harmless" to his POV.
We also know that West Berlin was totally destroyed, surrounded by communists and subject to the Berlin blockade, which caused hunger among the population, which comprised both natives and refugees. Nobody would voluntarily pick that city to live in - unless, for example, relatives had wound up there, unable to proceed further West, or waiting there as close as possible to their home, hoping that they could return one day. Asking for a source that an ethnic German from east of Oder-Neisse rivers "was personally affected by the expulsion of Germans from Poland after WW 2", like admin EdJohnston did above, is like questioning whether an ethnic Jew from a German occupied area was personally affected by the Holocaust. Tymek not only edit warred about Scherfke, but in the bio on Ernst Willimowski removed the background info on the Silesian Uprisings after which, despite the plebiscite in which the Silesians voted to remain in Germany, a part of Silesia was given to Poland, making six year old Ernst a Pole. On the other hand, Tymek recently created the article Wawelberg Group, praising a bunch of Polish terrorists who started the Third Silesian Uprising in 1921, blowing up railway bridges in Weimar Germany. Tymek also edit warred to remove relevant info about the 20th century history of the Silesian family of current German striker Miroslav Klose, while adding far-fetched 10th century claims to that bio.
EdJohnston, as done previously on your talk, I strongly urge you to fully remove "Matthead would be at the same point if it weren't for the providential arrival of two single-purpose IPs to help him revert" which violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:AGFs towards me and those three Rostock, Orange and Sacramento based anon editors who you falsely describe as "Neither IP has any WP edit except this one time". Also, I urge you to reconsider your decision to decline consequences to the undeniable fact that Tymek broke 3RR, be it a block and/or addition to the Digwuren Arbcom restrictions you cited. While 29 odd editors are listed there, for example this user never had been added there by "any uninvolved administrator", which illustrates the questionableness of this list which contains only two names familiar as Polish to me (a third had been added and removed). -- Matthead  Discuß   14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser needs to be performed. There are way to many wiki savvy IPs aiding Matthead on Wikipedia in revert wars for it to be a pure coincident.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, we are not talking about Wilimowski, Klose or Wawelberg. Please. You keep on adding irrelevant information, it makes no sense to write history of Silesia in the Miroslaw Klose or Ernest Wilimowski bio articles. Tymek (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Both Matthead and Tymek: This page isn't for continuing your dispute. Head to the article's talk page for that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I struck out part of my opinion on this case, after hearing some of the comments made, and boxed up a discussion which is too long for this noticeboard. The page is still protected, and I look forward to some of the editors here making suggestions at Talk:Friedrich Scherfke on how to improve the article. Anyone who still thinks the closure was wrong can comment at User talk:EdJohnston, or raise the matter at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Levine2112 (Result: User already blocked )[edit]


Time reported: 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User has a history of edit warring and even now is involved in an edit war on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

ScienceApologist is making most of the reverts claiming that he is reverting the work of a banned user. This may be true. But we don't know for sure. ScienceApologist has not provided any evidence that these removals were of posts of a sockpuppet of an identified banned user. He was warned several times by User:Jossi [48] [49] [50], but went right on reverting disruptively.

Just a drive-by comment ... most of the time, sock puppets are reverted long before the sock puppet report is closed, without consequence. I certainly don't let Editor652's or Soccermeko's edits linger any longer than forced to by the time it takes for my watchlist to process, even though the sockpuppet report may take days. Unless people believe that SA's sock puppet report was filed in bad faith, his reverts are reasonable.
Kww (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Per request by ScienceApologist[51] "I was also going to respond to a 3RR report that was made by User:Levine2112 at WP:3RN basically saying I'm sorry for the fourth revert and would undo the revert myself, but it has been a hectic night and the situation is rapidly spiraling out of control. Can someone note that for me? I just want to be unblocked so I can defend myself at the appropriate places and get someone to notice the Davkal sockpuppetry. Thanks." Opps. forgot to sign earlier. Ward20 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, none of the four reverts at Fringe Theories had anything to do with any suspected sockpuppets of Davkal. That is just a red-herring here. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia:Fringe theories has been protected, and while Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ is technically still open, the account does appear to be another Davkal sock. PhilKnight (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • User has been already blocked for 24 hrs for recurring deletion of talk page comments, after warnings. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Species8473 (Result: 1 week)[edit]