Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive79

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:76.105.246.26 reported by User:JuJube (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

76.105.246.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Is attempting to add an Encyclopedia Dramatica link to the "Criticism" section of this page. JuJube (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Comayagua99 reported by User:Miami area editor (Result: Closed)[edit]

Comayagua99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


The accused user is obviously just removing vandalism.Just as obvious is the sock-puppet that made the accusation - a sock created today. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how putting a newer photo in an article is vandalism. The one who is reverting to older photos and lower quality photos (User:Comayagua99) is the true vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.46.16 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't reply to blatant sock-puppets.
Can an admin please protect the Brickell, Miami, Florida http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brickell,_Miami,_Florida&action=history please Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The request was submitted at WP:RFPP, which resulted in South Florida metropolitan area, Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, and Brickell, Miami, Florida being semi-protected for two days. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is closed off, then. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Avala reported by User:LokiiT (Result: 7 hours)[edit]

Avala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


I removed a map from an article, stated my reasons multiple times on both the article talk page and the image talk page, other users agreed with removal of said map, and now this user is accusing me of vandalism and "page blanking". LokiiT (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Avala reverted 4 times within 24 hours. However, Avala has made quite a number of edits since then and going mostly by the edit summaries my impression is that Avala stopped reverting the same material on receiving the warning. I added information in italics to the above report. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Correction: Oops: apparently the reason there don't seem to be more reverts is that the map has stayed in the article. In other words, it's stayed in the version preferred by Avala. Sorry, my above comment was not thought through. Coppertwig (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 7 hours Stifle (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:CENSEI (Result:No violation)[edit]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Article is under probation, and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has violated 3RR on many occasions before. CENSEI (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • No violation here. 3RR prohibits making the same revert (or one that accomplishes something similar) within 24 hours. These are different: the first one is removing a link to an impersonator, the second removed the phrase "caucasian hybrid" from the article, the third removed details about Clinton's endorsement, and the fourth had to do with electoral history. None of them are the same, or even remotely similar. Since the page wasn't reverted to the same version (there were lots of other editors in between who weren't reverted) this doesn't look like edit warring to me, just bold editing. Also, for future reports, please provide diffs for the reverts, rather than links to versions. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Policy. Kafziel, your interpretation of the policy is not correct. 3RR does not prohibit the same revert, it prohibits any revert. From WP:3RR

Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, except in certain circumstances. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert.

I would like another opinion before this is closed as there were four reverts performed by Lulu and none of them to undo vandalism. CENSEI (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The purpose of 3RR is to avoid edit wars. The rule isn't intended to encourage people to push the limit, but it isn't intended to prevent bold edits made in good faith, either. That was the case here. As I've already said, if he had been reverting to a particular version then that would be a problem, but there were lots of other edits made that he didn't revert. For that reason I don't consider it an edit war, just an experienced editor working to improve Wikipedia. If it happens again it can be revisited, but this one is closed. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:122.135.163.183 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

122.135.163.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Editors who intend to work on a hotly-contested article should move carefully and search for consensus. This IP, a brand new account who works only on issues related to this one article, does not seem to be careful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Pink Evolution reported by User:Onceloose (Result: Protected)[edit]

The above user was involved in a edit war quite some time ago apparently. The user has started adding material to For Life (Isis Gee song) falsifying the songs position in the eurovision song contest. The song came JOINT LAST and is listed as such. The user continues to add that it came second last which is incorrect as it is listed in alphabetical order as last place.

The user has been warned about adding the same information in the past but is still doing it.

From the talk page it looks like the user was blocked for this same naughtiness in July.

In order to stop an edit war please block the above user to leave the page as JOINT LAST.

Onceloose (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this case is cleared after this and this discussion. Onceloose (talk · contribs) was wrong by official eurovision-song-contest-site and so you can't call his action just edit-war, you could call it vandalism, too. But per WP:AGF he just didn't know it and in future he won't act like this anymore (he already stopped reverting). That's why I think a block for Onceloose or the article is not necessary. Greetings, --Pink Evolution (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You added unsourced material to wiki about a no-existant 'tie-break' for last place. You are a serial vandal who has been blocked and involved in an edit war on this page. I believe your actions above are to start a new edit war. If you add a source for this 'tie-break' for last place other than the alphabetically ordered table of countires that came last I will agree with you. This has not been added.

ADMIN please look at the edit history of Pink Evolution for confirmation Onceloose (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting close to reporting Onceloose for disruptive editing. Both Onceloose and Pink Evolution have asked for my help and I rewrote the sections about their disagreement hoping that it would solve the problem. Onceloose feels that the article must say that "For Life" came in last place which is wrong since according to the official website [eurovision.tv], the 3 way tie for last place was broken and the song given 24th of 25. I noted in my rewrite that the song had tied for last, but Onceloose insists on it only saying that the song placed "joint last". His comments about Pink Evolution's past are irrelevant, she served her time and it should not affect every edit that she makes especially when she has stated where she is getting her info from. See my talk page for our discussions. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note there is never a tie-break for last place in the eurovision song contest. I have properly asked for a source to prove there was a tie-break. In eurovision and all newspaper stories she came 'joint last'. I think Pink Evolution's past is very relevant. She has constantly added false material to this and other pages - even being blocked.

1. A number of sources state that Isis came joint last as per the rules of eurovsion ( last 3 entries placed as per alphabetical order).

2. PinkEvolution a user that has been blocked in the past for vandalism and was involved in an edit war has added new unsourced information related to a 'tie-break'.

As the information is unsouced and from a biased user I suggest you provide a source for this 'tie-break' as when I read the rule is expressly is for a winner of the competition. Loosers are placed joint last. I am loosing heart, one tries to protect wiki and all that happens is a serial pest adds falsehoods and wastes everyones time. I give up!

Onceloose (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good choice! Do you want to revert your nonsene by yourself or should I do it? I really hope you come back to us after you learnt how to write an encylopedia based on facts and not with evidences you personally would like to hear. --Pink Evolution (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I SUGGEST ADMIN LOOK AT PINK EVOLUTIONS EDIT HISTORY AND BLOCK FOR VANDALISM Onceloose (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected For Life (Isis Gee song). There are no references in the article to establish the final position of the song in the rankings one way or the other. I will be happy to lift the protection as soon as anyone can add proper references to the song's Talk page. Since the standing is contested, please quote the exact text that you think applies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Andy_Bjornovich reported by User:KoshVorlon (Result:Discussion at WP:AN over this user generally which will supercede this report)[edit]

First report - please excuse any errors

Andy_Bjornovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding a 3RR when (a) the presence of his family tree is already being discussed with the user is a bit of a pile-on, to be honest. The sock is more likely to be him editing whilst logged out rather than deliberate socking. If he's going to be blocked for anything it'll be disruption generally arising out of the WP:AN discussion, so I don't think a 3RR report is beneficial at this stage. GbT/c 20:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


User:Wikitestor & User:62.57.212.101 reported by User:Tennis expert (Result: Wikitestor 12 hours; his two IPs one month)[edit]

Wikitestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
62.57.212.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Wikitestor has admitted that 62.57.212.101 is a sockpuppet of his. See also his user page.

EDIT: It's not my sockpuppet lol, its my ip but I forget to login like I say on the talk page xD. Wikitestor (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Time reported: 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Wikitestor 12 hours. Since the two IP accounts that he acknowledges seem to heavily engage in reverts, I've blocked both of them for 1 month: 81.184.38.161 (talk · contribs) and 62.57.212.101 (talk · contribs). Let Wikitestor use his main account if he wants to edit hotly-contested articles. It's not at all clear that Tennis expert has support on the Talk page for all his tournament name changes; I encourage him to build consensus for his ideas. See this Talk page link for a sensible effort at a wider discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, just to say there's no point blocking my ip's for 2 reasons: first one dynamical ip (this means I don't have that IP anymore and moreover you're probably now blocking someone else innocent from Barcelona) and i've 4 kinds of IP ranges (2 ISP's contracted). I'm not vandalizing so no need to block IPs, but even if you tried it you couldn't do it, so unblock the IPs cause maybe you're blocking random people xD. another IP of Wikitestor. 81.184.71.22 (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikitestor, if you don't want to be taken through WP:SSP I strongly suggest you stop editing with all IP accounts, since that is block evasion. Semiprotecting tennis articles is one option to consider if the abuse continues. The blocks will remain. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I mean: you're blocking someone from Barcelona (62.57) and someone from entire Spain (81.184). 81.184.71.22 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:LedRush reported by User:Laomei (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


  • LedRush is possibly a Sockpuppet or working in coordination with User:Asdfg12345. Upon reaching his 3rd revert, LedRush immediately began reverting, he has no previous history on the article or comments in the talk page. User LedRush is claiming consensus on language as an excuse for excessive reverts, however there is no consensus or agreed language.
  • I have long been a contributer and watcher of China articles including this one. I saw an edit war in which Laomei had already broken the 3RR rule and thought I could offer a good compromise. Instead, Laomei has resorted to personal attacks and stubborn refusal to talk about possible compromise solutions. Quite honestly, I thought that my suggested edit would be considered a victory and a vindication of Laomei's position, but clearly I was wrong.LedRush (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the article's history, I'm seeing five clear reverts. Someone else breaking 3RR is no reason for you to do so. Kuru talk 03:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Laomei reported by LedRush (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Laomei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:17 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 11:48, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */")
  2. 11:57, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Human rights */ Citations mention nothing in regard to this claim.")
  3. 16:15, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Human rights */ - see talk page, no supporting references")
  4. 16:16, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ - see talk page, figures are not documented or verifiable")
  5. 17:24, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ same reason as before for this, if you can find an original source for the data, in any official form from a 1st hand source with a definite number it can stay.")
  6. 20:26, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ If you are going to claim the numbers of one side, then the numbers of both sides shall be included.")
  7. 22:23, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ edit - there is no "consensus" here amongst anyone. I am providing a neutral source which provides the full range of claims. This is NPOV.")
  8. 23:06, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "undo rv, again there is no concensus, there is no need to expand a minor issue into an entire paragraph, there is no need to cite a source which adds nothing.")
  9. 23:22, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "There is no "agreed language" amongst anyone here, if you want to continue this, go ahead, but I suggest you take it to the talk page, where you will find there is no "agreed langauge"")
  10. 23:47, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "Please see talk page, issue has been addressed and this is an absurd edit war")
  11. 23:59, 28 August 2008 (edit summary: "Likewise, neither can I, you have no history on this page and have contributed nothing, you have violated 3RR and claim a non-existant consensus.")
  • I somehow suspect I have messed this up badly, but Laomei's actions are bad enough that I must make my first report. I have contributed to the article several times in the past and it is on my watch list. I noticed an edit war and thought that I could intercede and make a compromise solution. Laomei ignored me on the discussion page, has ignored the language that has long been in place and was the result of long discussions, and has made about 10 reverts.

Also, Laomei is aware of the rule as he reported me first.LedRush (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

LedRush (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • You will find that these "reverts" are edits furthering the evidence being provided while being ignored in talk by this sockpuppet of Asdfg12345 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laomei (talkcontribs)
  • These reverts are you changing accepted language to your point of view, with which no one on the board agrees. Your tactics here continue your habit of discourtesy. I have shown that I have edited this article in the past (on the dispute concerning 3rd or 4th largest country by area). I generally stick to articles about Rush, China, Bell and Pong and articles related to these. Please don't accuse me of being a sockpuppet because I didn't fully agree with you in your dispute. The other guy wanted to keep the language exactly the same, you wanted to change the language and add a new citation. I proposed an alternative that was middle of the road, NPOV, and relevant. I don't know why you think this makes me a sockpuppet as I have altered the discussion. Your reverts (which clearly contradict wikipedia standards) are another manifestation of your reluctance to compromise or reach consensus.LedRush (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I can see no obvious support for the sockpupperty assertion, and that's an impressive array of reverts. Blocked for 48 hours due to just coming off a disruptive editing block. Kuru talk 03:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:CENSEI reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 1 week block and 12h block)[edit]

CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: User has reported at least two other editors on this page, so he is well aware of this rule. (
If you look closely, as Gamaliel obviously did not, Croctotheface continued to add material sourced from http://dailyhowler.com, a weblog, which is a violation of WP:BLP,and as such 3RR does nto apply to the removal of such material.

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

I may not have taken this issue to the proper authorities, but as the policy is quite clear on this, I have not violated 3RR. CENSEI (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you didn't just remove an offending source, your edits were clearly content edits. You also removed content sourced to The New Republic, which clearly isn't a blog. Gamaliel (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you didnt catch it the first time, so I will reiterate: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source . Thanks for the concern. CENSEI (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Fine, remove the blog. Why remove The New Republic? Why no mention of BLP until now? Why no message on the talk page or the BLP noticeboard? You had plenty of words to taunt another user in the edit summary, but none to explain why material clearly sourced to a RS is supposedly a BLP violation. Gamaliel (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I have raised BLP issues on articles I edit ... its what I am known for and what I like to focus on. And me taunt Croctotheface? Sorry, but I wasnt the user who was claiming that certain editors should be reverted on sight and that their opinion wasnt valid. Its not my job to fix Croctotheface's edits. He continually reinserted a flagrant BLP violation (something you are certainly familiar with) and I had every right to revert him. Considering that the family of a dead girl personaly asked you to stop turning their tragedy into political hay, you of all people should know that WP:BLP issues can effect real people's lives and we need to take special care with them. CENSEI (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Your response merely repeats BLP and attacks me, but doesn't address the substance of the issue at all. You had time to dig up and misrepresent a two year old AfD discussion, you have time to attack me here and Croctotheface in your edit summary, but can't find any time to explain an edit you made an hour ago. It's clear that you are just crying BLP after the fact attempt to avoid a block. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Whats there to explain? It was, by even your own admission, a BLP violation. Nothing more to explain .. it was obvious but I thank and commend you for your concern. CENSEI (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
There is everything to explain: why you removed The New Republic, why you made content edits and are trying to pass them off as removing a supposed BLP violation, why you didn't mention it was supposedly a BLP violation until you were called on it here. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked CENSEI (talk · contribs) for 1 week. Parts of the reverts have a possible BLP defence. However, other content is removed for which the sourcing is patently not problematic. It is for the repeated removal of this material, rather than the dubiously sourced material, that the block is issued.
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Croctotheface (talk · contribs) is blocked for 12 hours for edit-warring to restore the material, some of which was dubiously sourced.
CIreland (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Asdfg12345 reported by Laomei (Result: No violation)[edit]

People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

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

  1. 20:27, 28 August 2008
  2. 00:27, 29 August 2008
  3. 10:06, 29 August 2008
  • Also, as this has drawn in more than one "user" with the same exact point and this is a trend which is ongoing, I would like to bring attention to the sockpuppet investigation which I have requested on Asdfg12345 as it is blatant and against the spirit of wikipedia. Talk pages have been ignored and ignorance is claimed, if a user is unable to explain why a change was made when requested, that change should not have been made. I am requesting a Chinese-speaking administrator to settle this argument before it drags on for months, I have already agreed to abide by that decision and it has been ignored, once again in bad faith, by a user pursuing an agenda.

Laomei (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see no simple support for sockpuppetry allegations, and no violation of 3RR by this user. Kuru talk 03:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note--Tananka (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tananka reported by User:Biophys (Result: 24h)[edit]

Tananka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This user warned several others about alleged 3RR violations, while doing the violation himself. The material was discussed at article talk page. This user as in minority but decided to enforce his opinion. Note the character of material he inserted.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also see this. I do not know however if this accusation of sockpuppetry is true. Look at edit history of this user. It looks suspicious to me.Biophys (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your first diff shows an edit made at 17:58 26 August, not 28 August. In any case, here are the four reverts: 19:37, 28 August 2008, 20:29, 28 August 2008, 03:06, 29 August 2008 (reinsertion of this) and 05:02, 29 August 2008. Blocked 24 hours. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Biophys and User:Ostap R reported by User:Tananka (Result: No action)[edit]

Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


  • 1st revert: [4]
  • 2nd revert: [5]
  • 3rd revert: [6]
  • 3rd revert: [7]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [8]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]

--Tananka (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made only two edits in this article today.Biophys (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
As did I. Ostap 04:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:3RR
Discussion was attempted with editors, after whole additions were removed. Please check the Revision history and the discussion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Fighters_operating_under_US_flag.2C_or_how_not_to_delete_additions.2C_respect_NPOV_while_seeking_concensus.

Discussion of actual material was refused, and ensued repetitive deletions by 3 users without debate. That's a real shame, debate is what's best. Note that I actually gave warnings to those two users, in the hope it could open balanced debate. Why can we not enrich the article? --Tananka (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we both provided arguments at article talk page, but you did not reply yet. That was actually you who refused negotiations (see my last comment made 3:19) [10] no reply from you.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
3RR applies to individuals, not groups. There is no 3RR violation here, so no block. I'll look and see if the page needs protecting. Mangojuicetalk 12:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Discussion seems to be under way, and the level of activity over this dispute is not substantially disrupting the article. Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Mangojuicetalk 12:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Macgruder reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24h)[edit]

Macgruder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Note The article has been under the ArbCom ruling, so the article is zero-tolerable over any edit warring. 1RR per day has been applied to any editor since October 2007, and Macgruder has been engaging in editing the article since early May 2007[11] He knows the rule too well because he participated in renaming and contributed in forming the ArbCom rules. These revert are not identical but all are lied in the same vein, disputing a caption of some image. His first edit is a revert of Masonfamily's edit with whom Macgruder has been disputing because Masonfamily inserted the image and caption on two days ago[12] and edit wars began. This kind of disruptive edit wars are strictly forbidden to the article, so administrative actions would be needed.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Update The user is already taken care along with Masonfamily[13][14] by administrator, Future Perfect at Sunrise so the report goes null, I think.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:12.10.125.8 reported by User:Amatulic (Result: Page semi-protected)[edit]

12.10.125.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Anonymous user apparently fails to understand WP:NOT and WP:EL, insisting that a large list of external links is necessary for the body of this article in spite of consensus against inclusion of these links.

It is disturbing to note that when a 3rd opinion and talk page consensus from three other editors began to form, this anonymous editor resorted to blanking the comments of other editors.

Based on editing pattern, this user appears to be the same as user contributions who originally added the links. However, there has been no effort in the direction of sockpuppetry; it seems the editor just doesn't bother to log in when reverting and arguing.

The revert frequency is flying under the 3RR radar, probably due to editors residing in different time zones that result in one or two reverts per day. Therefore, a standard short-term block will likely go unnoticed. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected The IP engaged in edit warring, but even if you combine his edits with those of Sgoggins there are not four reverts in any 24-hour period. I've semi-protected the article to simplify future 3RR enforcement. If Sgoggins continues to revert under his own name, open a new report, mentioning this evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I note that the 3RR warning template does say that users can still be blocked for reversions even if they don't technically violate the 3RR rule. I have seen edit wars before where one user is in the U.S. and the other is in Asia, and each reverts the other once per day, for several days on end. I would still consider 4 reverts in such a situation a 3RR violation. The geographic situation doesn't appear to be the case here, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Google suggests the IP may be that of his employer, so blocking the IP is a live option to consider if no progress can be made otherwise. Let's wait to see if either Sgoggins or the IP responds to the messages left on their Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Winger84 reported by User:Hobartimus (Result:31 hours)[edit]

Winger84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 15:58
  • Diff of 3RR warning: 16:08

It's about neutrality/advertisement tags on the Sarah Palin article (currently linked from main page). Good overview to the contribs [15] Hobartimus (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakrtalk / 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jwinius reported by User:216.93.231.149 (Result:Both blocked 24 hrs)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [16]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

Check out the user talkpage. Other editors have complained to him about him owning articles. You can also check out his edit history. He calls edits pointless if he disagrees with what is being put in. Time for a blocking, this user needs to stop bossing other editors around. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Jwinius appears to be justified in insisting on a policy of verifiability where absolutes are being inserted. Please do not edit-war and then complain about the party who's following Wikipedia policies. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
IP Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked for edit-warring by Tiptoey. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I blocked Jwinius too, seeing as he also engaged in edit warring. I am very much willing to unblock him though if he agrees to no longer edit war in the future, and instead take it to the talk page. Tiptoety talk 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Musicmogul09 reported by Me-123567-Me (Result:Blocked)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [21]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [26]

User won't discuss his controversial edits before he makes them, and is creating an edit war. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Tiptoety talk 04:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Stale)[edit]




This particular editor has a long history of edit warring. Earlier today, he started doing it on Baba. He stopped after I distributed a 3RR warning. Then targeted Saiyuki and, despite our past discussion on its talk page, he kept reverting until breaking 3RR. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Query Is this still in force? CIreland (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. I recently took my name off that contract [27]. Don't know if Abtract did the same, but the fact that he is still hounding me remains. All I asked for was a simple talk, but he can't even do that correctly. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale I would have blocked both editors for 48 hours for edit-warring but this has gone stale due to not being handled since my query above. I see JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left notes on the talk pages of both editors; that will have to suffice. I could speculate on why so few admins are prepared to deal with this kind of thing but to do so would not provide a solution. CIreland (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

75.82.22.106 reported by Dúnadan (Result: Blocked 12h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [28]


Please note that the section on Ethnography includes a small paragraph on "Amerindian contribution in the Argentine population", citing two genetic studies. The inclusion or exclusion of this paragraph has been extensively debated, and the consensus was to keep it. He was asked to stop reverting and to debate.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

--the Dúnadan 23:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has reverted the page 4 additional times, and has been reverted by two other users. Why hasn't this issue been addressed? If this recourse to report 3RR is not working, please advise on any additional place to report this type of unacceptable behavior. --the Dúnadan 15:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right, my issue wasn't taken care of either. Both of our reports were made accordingly so I'm wondering why no sysops have taken action. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked for 12 hours. Would have been 24 but this report was late being dealt with. CIreland (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maurice27 and Mountolive reported by Benimerin (Result:Benimerin blocked 55 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [34]




This article is always turned as "controversial" bacause of the manners and attitudes of these both users. User Maurice27 has been previously blocked already because of editwarring and breaking wikettiquette.--Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 55 hours Upon examination, it appears that the reporting party is the one violating 3RR and has been blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Benimerin is blocked and has asked that the following content be added to this thread. I have no view as to its merits and don't endorse it. east718 // talk // email // 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [35]


Peter Damian reported by Stifle (Result: Handled)[edit]