Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive81

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Dead-or-Red reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 48 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [1]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [2] 18:13, 20 September 2008

User:Dead-or-Red has been unilaterally removing all material that refers to Lauren Booth's appeareance in a maket in Gaza. Every edit removes a link to the incident or a description of it. IronDuke 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The user has not made any further reverts since the warning, lets wait it out and see. Tiptoety talk 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I added the time of the warning, above. Dead-or-Red has been previously blocked for 3RR, so the warning seems clear enough. Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 3RR violation, following an earlier block in June for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

903M reported by ThuranX (Result: 31 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [3]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [19] Note that others also warned him today with templates, I gave him a distinctly direct, non-templated notice, per 'don't template the regulars'.
  • [20]

Please examine the page hsitory to observe other instances of 3RR on the same page. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions specifically notes that 3RR exempts reverting copyrighted material. Currently there is a report of the copyright violation. 3 users have noted the inappropriate use of non-free use. To resolve the matter, I have been extremely polite and have submitted the copyright violation report in hopes of resolving this matter once and for all. Several people have noted that ThuranX is hostile and he has violated 3RR, if not by the letter, in spirit. He has also removed the copyright violation tag in spite of CLEAR instructions not to remove it until it is resolved. So if anyone is blocked, it must be ThuranX.

My edits are exempt from 3RR because it clearly states that reverts are to remove copyright violations. Rather than just revert, I've also submitted a copyrright violation report so this matter can be resolved (either way) instead of angry ThuranX just adding the image back. Administrators should note that I have been extremely polite. My concern is that Wikipedia not violate copyright. This issue will probably be resolved soon but 3RR against me is against policy (3RR exemption to copyright violations, tag prohibits removal as has been done by ThuranX) 903M (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Although I don't think the {{Copyviocore}} template is supposed to be used in this way, User:903M is correct that s/he did not violate 3RR in removing a copyright violation repeatedly. S/he has explained on Talk:Henry Ford how the image in question does not meet WP:FU criteria, so until these criteria are adequately addressed, the image should not be re-added to the article. The {{Copyviocore}} template should not be added to a page that has already had the copyright violation removed, however. It is supposed to be placed on pages where a large portion of the content is suspected to be a copyright violation, but has not yet been removed. -kotra (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I made the user aware of that, but the user persisted in behaving in a POINTy manner. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I added diffs to all the reverts done by this user. Just in the last 4 or 5 he started adding a copyvio template along with removing the image. -Nard 03:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Can someone provide a link to the ANI discussion please? Tiptoety talk 04:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Above, 903M suggests i broke 3RR in spirit, if not in letter. IN fact, When I realized I was upon a 3RR, I stopped, and since 903M was already there, notified her, so as to let her step back, because I was aware that I was atthe limit myself, and saw it as unfair to play gotcha unfairly. I did NOT report her at that time for the earlier vio, despite her unwillingness to self-revert. I left it alone, in the spirit of deescalation, and this has been mentioned before, so the accusation being repeated here is cheap. ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Tiptoety talk 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 903M was fighting against several editors (me included) who were convinced that the picture was not a violation. The question now is whether to add the photo back... or is there still a question about its copyright? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This page is for discussions about 3RR violations, so let's leave that question to be discussed at Talk:Henry Ford. -kotra (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. Part of the point was that he might argue he was being "ganged up on". It's important to note that he was blocked for edit-warring, not necessarily for being factually wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:YMB29 reported by User:Biophys (Result: 48 h )[edit]

YMB29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [21]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [22]

This user fights against a consensus of several users who can agree with each other and gradually improve this article. YMB29 does nothing but reverts during the entire month (see his edit history)

What consensus are you talking about. There was no consensus. You think if one or two of your friends or socks agree with you, you have reached consensus? I am doing nothing but reverts? Well look at your edits in that article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


  • A possible sockpuppet. Some investigation is needed because he was awarded a barnstar and was aided in his warier efforts by User:Kostan1 who was blocked as a puppet of notorious banned User:M.V.E.i.. Perhaps he is M.V.E.i. himself - I do not know. This IP might be also him.
That is very low of you to report me as a sock when you have no evidence. You just want to get me banned because you know you have no arguments against my edits and just want to get rid of me. -YMB29 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Incivility. He was warned for incivility [23]; also see here
Who are you to give me warnings? You think you are an admin here. What incivility are you even talking about? Me saying something to someone (calling a user who was making pro nazi edits a nazi sympathizer after he called me a commie sympathizer) months or years ago in totally different articles? -YMB29 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 48h. Will investigate the possible socking. Moreschi (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey why don't you investigate Biophys and Bobanni instead.
Was not 3RR for reverting edits of one user more than 3 times?
Why did you block me from the whole Wikipedia for that for 48 hours? What happened to "users violating the rule may warrant a block from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance"? Just because Biophys accuses me of incivility, being a sock, and making reverts against consnsus? Don't you have to investigate first before you do anything? Simply going by accusations is not what admins are supposed to do. You blocked me and I did not have a chance to reply.
Biophys refuses to discuss the issues after I was willing to do so many times. He simply ignores discussions and reverts everything, including sourced information and [citation needed] tags. Why don't you look at the talk page for that article? It is obvious what is going on there to anyone who actually looks. -YMB29 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:CadenS reported by §hep¡Talk to me! (Result: Stale - No Action)[edit]

David Beckham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CadenS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:22, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 239860927 by SpartanSWAT10 (talk)")
  2. 21:31, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 239863013 by SpartanSWAT10 (talk)")
  3. 22:07, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted. Don't be a goof and don't piss me off!")
  4. 22:39, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Reverted. I don't give a rat's ass what you think. Quit pissing me off!")
  5. 22:47, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 239877517 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)")
  6. 23:19, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 239880870 by Beve (talk)")

§hep¡Talk to me! 02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Are you sure that there were reverts after the warning? Even if so, I don't think a ban serves any purpose here. The edit war has stopped and he has apologised on his talk page. Also, edit #1 above is not the same as the others. Beve (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply A revert is a revert, how does #1 not apply? It is a reversion, yes? §hep¡Talk to me! 02:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: as Beve mentions above, the user stopped reverting after being warned about the 3-revert rule. last revert: 23:19, 20 September 2008, warning: 23:23, 20 September 2008. -kotra (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This report made by Stepshep is bogus. I didn't do any reverts after receiving my warning. Furthermore, Edit #1 is a completely different edit and has nothing to do with the others. Caden S (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Editor stopped and apologized post-warning. A block wouldn't be preventative here.--KojiDude (C) 23:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dicting reported by Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours )[edit]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [25] 02:51, 19 September 2008
  • Disruptive POV pushing in disregard with consensus and result of WP:3O that the user in question requested.[26] He created the duplicated articles with Goguryeo here and at Chinese Wikipedia, zh:高句丽县[27] to assure the redirect article not to be deleted. The Chinese pronunciation has been a repeated target for POV pushing without academic usages, and consensus for years. He has been doing this over multiple articles, so well, block is quite in order.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Dicting requested a third opinion, to which I responded here. Shortly thereafter, Dicting added more comments, indicating that he did not agree with my opinion. It is apparent that this user is overly involved in this topic and I suggested a wiki-break here. A short-term block to force that break may be appropriate. Truthanado (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: On Gaogouli County, Dicting has done 4 reverts within a 24-hour period and violated 3RR in my opinion. Each revert changes a redirect into an article. Reverting in the other direction, Cydevil38 has done 3 reverts and Caspian blue has done 2 reverts, each in a 24-hour period. On Goguryeo, I can't verify whether they're reverts, because the given "previous version reverted to" is after all the reverts. I added some information in italics to this report. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pieterbotha reported by Maedin (Result: 31 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [28]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

This user keeps adding a gratuitous link to a YouTube video which I believe is in violation of the external links guidelines and especially inappropriate for the biographical article of a controversial sporting figure. In amongst this, he has also reverted my removal of libellous content from Ian Paisley ([34]) and vandalised my user page: [35]. Maedin\talk 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Tiptoety talk 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:91.121.102.38 reported by Blacklist (Result: 24 hours for edit warring)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [36]



User continues adding non-notable links to the article after being warned in both the edit comments and his talk page. Blacklist (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring, though less than four reverts in 24 hours. Over the past week this IP editor repeatedly inserts his choice of external links to the M.U.G.E.N. article. This is practically all he does. No discussion on Talk, and no awareness of the WP:EL policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kgardner1123 reported by User:Seal Clubber (Result: Blocked 8 hours )[edit]

Comment User:Kgardner1123 has already been warned for edit warring and has ignored the warning. The edit history of the Death Magnetic page shows that Kgardner1123 has ignored all talk page consensus and reverted the page at least 25 times in the past 6 days. Seal Clubber (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Note This user did a 6th revert to this page. I have added the diff link. 203.201.149.214 (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The account named User:Kgardner1123 is also over 3RR on the articles for Cyanide (song) and The Day That Never Comes. 217.40.236.169 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Just as well you added those extra reverts. #2 and #3 don't count because they're edits in a series of consecutive edits by the same user. Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:64.131.245.107 (Result: Malformed)[edit]

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

User is well past 3RR violation, in inserting some original research about the number "3" and its alleged connection to the final game at Yankee Stadium. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hostin reported by Clubjuggle (Result: 24 hours )[edit]




--Clubjuggle T/C 16:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Alleichem reported by User:SkyWriter (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [41]


This is ocurring across multiple pages:

On the Yahweh page:

Several of us have tried to discuss WP:UNDUE issues with this user on his talk page:

He's also doing this kind of thing on other pages:

He's exhausted the resources of multiple editors and we need enforcement of the 3RR rule, please.

I have warned the user on his talk page, also:

Thanks. SkyWriter (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 20:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User: A Sniper reported by User:Hi540 (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours )[edit]




  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

The discussion page, particularly the "zzzzz" comment, adequately demonstrates that this user has violated the 3 revert rule.Hi540 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC) He now seems to have reverted five times in 24 hours.Hi540 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this user's characterization of the reverts. I have given adequate explanation of all my edits, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. I would note that this user merely reverted my work, with no explanation, after tag-teaming on reverts with John Foxe, a user warned for article ownership. In any event, there is no edit war as other regular users have started working on the article. I have also suggested mediation with John Foxe, and perhaps Hi540 would like to be a part of that. Despite my sockpuppet hunch about these two users, I am certainly willing to have an independent party go through our edits and find a way forward that isn't based on bullying, teaming up to out-revert, and intimidation. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 20:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prophaniti reported by User:Landon1980 (Result: 48 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [42]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]

User was blocked for violating 3RR on the 20th of this month as can be seen here Landon1980 (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not realise I had reverted more than 3 times within a 24 hour period, and apologise for this, and have undone the last revert as a result, for now. However, reverts were due to a directly sourced quote from a book being removed, with the reasoning being that "it doesn't count if it's not online". This is clearly utterly ridiculous. Prophaniti (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR does not cover your reasoning. Undoing your last edit may and probably will save you from being blocked. You are literally just off a block for 3RR, you should not be reverting anyones edits more than once this soon afterward. Let alone, 3 and even 4 reverts. You still have a problem of edit warring that needs to be addressed. If you want to discuss this further let's use our talk pages, here isn't the place. Landon1980 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I also want to point out the edit summary "Undone because I have inadvertently broken the 3RR. But I will simply redo it again when appropriate, because this is just idiotic." from this diff]. This isn't the place but after being warned repeatedly he is still attacking me personally which I can supply diffs for. Landon1980 (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I have not attacked you, Landon. I have attacked your edit, which -is- idiotic, because it goes against everything wikipedia stands for. And, as you say, this isn't the place for it. Please, drop this personal vendetta you seem to have against me. It really isn't refreshing to see editors jumping on things like that with glee. Prophaniti (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having reviewed things more carefully, I haven't broken the 3RR at all: my first of those 4 reverts counts as undoing vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism, specifically types of vandalism - blanking. Validly sourced material was removed without explanation in the first edit by Callmarcus, and hence comes under that heading as vandalism. Prophaniti (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Tiptoety talk 21:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


User:Laomei reported by LedRush (talk) (Result: No Violation)[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: 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 10:45, 20 September 2008 (edit summary: "desperation to include epoch times? it's not a legitimate source - removed")
  2. 00:16, 22 September 2008 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ been over this, not disruptive, epoch times is not a legitimate source. willing to play this game")
  3. 06:27, 22 September 2008 (edit summary: "lies told 1000 times do not become truths. keep it up. we've been over this and there was consensus on this issue, which you are now violating.")
  4. 20:44, 22 September 2008 (edit summary: "Falun Gong is not a religion, see talk page. Not my opinion, it is on record with the founder and the followers.")

LedRush (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked in the past for 3RR

Laomei continually and unilaterally assaults the information concerning falun gong on this board despite talk page consensus and discussions.LedRush (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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. Seems like the reported editor has taken this to the talkpage anyway.--KojiDude (C) 00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LedRush and his band of cohorts are determined to force FLG agenda on this page. They have a history of "playing coy" whenever it serves this agenda, over reporting anyone who does not go along with their agenda and generally abusing the system. LedRush in particular likes to claim "consensus", despite there being none and making accusations that I "have been banned". It is completely against the spirit of this project as a whole to allow a small band of cohorts to hijack a page and edit it to promote their agenda. Every edit is explained in the talk page, and infallible sources are ignored in favor of "debate" over the topic. If you take time to look through Asdfg12345's and LedRush's history on user pages and talk pages, this is a very common theme where they play "ignorant" while continuing edit wars without consensus or debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laomei (talkcontribs) 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63 reported by User:Wikidemon (Result:Blocked already outside of 3RR board[48] )[edit]

Note - this editor has already been blocked at more or less the time I filed this report - not sure if I should remove, report it as resolved, or do something else. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. 23:56, 22 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240323432 by Wikidemon (talk) Reverted. WikiDemon deleted as retribution and in bad faith in Obama Nation thread")
  2. 00:38, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240328086 by Wikidemon (talk) rv: Citations were good. WikiDemon is acting in bad faith and edit warring.")
  3. 01:35, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240339870 by Wikidemon (talk) RV: WikiDemon has dragged his bias and edit war here from Obama Nation page")
  4. 01:53, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240344091 by GoodDamon (talk) RV: Gross deletions. GoodDamon is WikiDemon's buddy from the Obama Nation page")
  5. 02:08, 23 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 240346653 by GoodDamon (talk) RV whole chunks of article deleted by GoodDamon. It is he who is vandalizing.")
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [49] (and many others)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Toddst1 (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich reported by Novidmarana (Result: No action )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [50]


edit summary is "Do not call this edit a revert. I just removed the parts which bring about edit wars"


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [55]


User keeps reverting several changes by other editors, most obvious are the reverts of the word [sic] to the quote of one professor, but there are also some other changes which this user reverts over and over again (instead of discussing changes on the talk page)

User has edit warred before, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Michael_Friedrich_reported_by_121.135.161.242_.28Result:_Closed_with_no_action_per_agreement.29, result was editor agrees to not edit the article for 24 hours, that is until 15:25 (UTC), 20 September. Novidmarana (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

They are all different edits. Especially, the 4th edit is not a revert at all. I removed the parts which brought about the edit war. I did not revert anything. Besides, I self reverted the edit right after it[56]. The 4th one cannot be called a revert. Besides, it had been more than 24 hours since the 1st one was done.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Not true, you removed at least the [sic] from the quote, although I explained to you in detail why it should be there (when there is a misspelling in the source, and there is one as it is an English language source the MOS allows the addition of a sic to clarify that the spelling error is in the source). So regardless of whether you agree or not, you should not remove the sic four times. And what you call a self-revert did not restore the original version, so it is not a self-revert as it only restored your preferred version without the [sic] additions to the quote. Novidmarana (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Please look closely at this edit. I corrected the misspelling. The misspelling was made not by the professor but me when I quoted it[57]. So, I corrected my own mistake and removed [sic] because no [sic] is needed anymore. The 3rd revert and the 4th revert should not be counted here. Please do not talk as if I had removed the [sic] without reason.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't matter for 3RR anyway, whether you thought that you had a good reason or not is largely irrelevant, except when it comes to dealing with obvious vandalism etc. I think that I have good reasons, too - if the quote is misspelled it is, and it is not our job as Wikipedians to correct misspellings in our sources. Novidmarana (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I said it was me who misspelled the words. There is no misspelling in the source. I corrected my own mistake. Why is it bad?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You claim that it was you who misspelled the words is not very believable given that the source is in English and given that you kept removing the [sic] from the quote but did not bother to correct the obvious spelling mistakes until your last edit. Novidmarana (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize the spelling was wrong until my last edit. I thought you were adding [sic] without reason because your other edit seemed to me meaningless, like changing Chinese characters into Hanja. At the first time, you even added [sic] to "the" although there was no misspelling in "the." The source is not in English but in Japanese. I quoted from this book. The books is never translated into English. I translated it myself and quoted it. I made a mistake then. You can see it was me who quoted it[58]. I only corrected my own mistake. You cannot blame me for correcting my own mistake[59] although you can blame me for having not realized the misspellings. My last edit should not be counted as a revert because all I did was correct my own mistake.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
So basically what you tell us is that suddenly you realized that the source is not in English but in Japanese. And that you just reverted, but did not even bother to look at what you reverted, because even a blind man would have seen this spelling mistakes. And that you kept reverting even after it had been explained to you why there should be a [sic]. And all that because you thought that my edits were meaningless. Just a question, are you able to learn? Because apparently you did not learn from the first incident a few hours ago. You cannot just revert any edits by other editor. There is a talk page and you should use this talk page to discuss controversial changes. But all your contributions on the talk page indicate only that you feel that you are only who is entitled to make changes to the article. Novidmarana (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please stop discussing on this page. This page is not for discussion. Please discuss at Talk:South Korean cultural claims or on your user talk pages. We need to keep the number of edits to this page small, because it's on many peoples' watchlists. In my opinion, Michael Friedrich has done 4 reverts in just over 24 hours, so technically it's not a 3RR violation. Novidmarana has done 3 reverts in 24 hours. Apparently this was all caused by a misunderstanding which apparently has been cleared up. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My 4th edit is not a revert anyway. I went to his talk page to solve the dispute, but it is true that he overused [sic] because he kept adding [sic] without the knowledge who made the mistake, the author or tue quoter. Adding [sic] without cheking the source puts the author under a false accusation and cannot be accepted.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Novidmarana He did the same act, too.[60][61] [62] [63] [64] --Propastop (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Arguably, Michael Friedrich has violated 3RR with the last two edits listed above plus two more recent reverts, 07:03, 22 September 2008 and 07:23, 22 September 2008, one removing a "Dubious" tag which had just been added on the previous edit and one restoring "been working on this issue" which had just been deleted on the previous edit. Michael Friedrich argues that the 4th revert listed above (removing "sic" and fixing the spelling mistakes) shouldn't count as a revert; since fixing the spelling mistakes ended the edit war over "sic" it seems to me that there's some merit to that argument. Michael Friedrich was uncivil. 07:29, 22 September after I had just asked him (19:25, 21 September 2008) to talk gently after he had made a very similar comment.(Trying to talk gently about talking gently) Coppertwig (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Blocking users or protecting the page would not be productive. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Comment (Edit conflict) The users are edit warring however, and should probably pursue dispute resolution. I recommend blocks over protection, article is up for deletion.--Tznkai (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Michael Freidrich not only still makes edit wars on the article in question regardless of his previous agreement, but also over other multiple articles. He was previously saved by the agreement not to make edit war just two days ago, but he broke it again.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment The dispute over [sic] is not something like that. Novidmarana just doesn't know how to use [sic]. That's the reason. Adding [sic] without the knowledge of the source cannot be accepted.
>>one removing a "Dubious" tag which had just been added on the previous edit and one restoring "been working on this issue" which had just been deleted on the previous edit.
This comment sounds as if it is OK for Novidmarana to edit the article but it is not OK for me. I added the original Japanese sentence but he added "dubious" without reason. I don't get at all what he wants more. He removed "been working on this issue" without reason. I only restored the information which he removed without reason. Is it OK for him to edit the article like that and is it not OK for me to edit the article?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Emerson7 reported by swanny18 (Result: )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [65]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

<!—I have referred this editor to the talk page, and asked for an explanation but have not received anything meaningful; I received these [73]and [74] on my talk page: I have left this [75], [76] and [77]over there Swanny18 (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC) here --> Also:-


  • Previous version reverted to: [78]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

<!—as “El Cid” above. Swanny18 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC) -->

User:Seicer reported by User:Allen32130 (Result: Malformed)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [link]


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


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

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. --Tznkai (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tremello22 reported by Jakew (Result: Warned )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [86]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [87]

Repeated reverts over section headings. Jakew (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Kao no Nai Tsuki reported by Michael Friedrich (Result: 24 hour block)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [88]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [93]
  • Note. Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) has been reported to here for his 3RR violation more than third times just within 15 ~ 17 days (the two violations happened just within 4 days). See the above thread WP:AN3#Michael Friedrich reported by Novidmarana (Result: No action ) along with this, and that But he was not blocked for the two recent case because of a wheel war between admins and his pledge not to make edit wars in the occasions. Besides he reverted 3 times (or more) on the article in question. The case in wheel warring is not resolved yet. It would be very unfair that that chronic 3RR violators are free from blocks, but disputers with him get blocked although I believe the accused one violated 3RR.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I used the talk page to avoid an edit war. I am not violating 3rr.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - First Offence. The proper original version was actually 12:13, September 22, 2008 Novidmarana, not the 8:37 Michael Friedrich version, but there were 4 reverts by Kao no Nai Tsuki in 24 hours, with the last after the warning. -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich reported by Kao no Nai Tsuki (Result: No Violation)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [94]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [100]


Content dispute. It is possible that he avoid 3rr rules by IP. last revert is possibly same user[101] for avoid trick of 3rr rule. It is still dispute in discussion, but He did not reach any consensus. My Last revert[102] is revert of unconsensed Change.Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Note Even if Michael Friedrich used a sock IP on the article, that does not make him break a 3RR rule at this time while Kao no Nai Tsuki clearly violated 3RR. However, Michael Friedrich recently broke 3RR twice but got no sanction due to a wheel warring between admins and his promise not to make edit wars. Thought the promise turns out to be vain.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The 2nd revert[103] is not a revert at all. What I did was to add "dubious" and some information on the source.
The 3rd revert[104] is not a revert either. I changed Korea into Goryeo because the word "高麗" means Goryeo.
The 5th revert is not mine. Even if it were mine (of cource it's not), it is only the 3rd revert because the 2nd revert and 3rd revert are not reverts at all.
Kao no Nai Tsuki states that it is still dispute in discussion, but I did not reach any consensus. But it is me who started the discussion on the talk page[105]. I was trying to reach a consensus. He calls other editors' edit "unconsensed" but his edit is not either.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
so it is a content dispute. It is still "unconsensed". I revert it original version before your edit. Michael Friedrich, you are only one who make dispute in this article. You try to delete Wikisource.[106] I don't know why. and ok. I will not violate 3rr further (I did not know 3rr rule) Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean you left this message even though you didn't know 3rr[107]?! It's very strange... Then if you admit I am not voilating 3rr, I would like you to withdraw this section.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I exactly did not know what is the 3rr. I copy and paste it, it existed in Your talk page. and you have recieved many many 3rr warning from other. [108] You seems like a One of the disruptive editor of english wikipedia.Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't want you to say so although you have just violated 3rr...--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Consecutive edits are not counted towards reversions. There is no 3RR violation. Using 3RR as a method to harass other editors is forbidden, by the by. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


User:65.4.86.217,User:68.154.151.187,User:70.144.0.171 reported by User:propastop (Result: )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [115]
  • Diff of 3RR warning:[116]