Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive83

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

A State Of Trance reported by DocKino (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Subsequent revert cuts of invasion assessment passage:

Subsequent revert cuts of human rights passage:

(Several of the reverts cut both passages, and so are recorded twice).

DocKino (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours User:A State Of Trance seems to believe he is reverting vandalism with these edits. There is some question in my mind about the sources that the other editors are repeatedly adding back, and he is again removing. But I don't think we give exemption from 3RR to removals of sources that you question. This editor had two blocks in September. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc reported by Ottava Rima (Result: Blocked for 24 hours, Reporter warned)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [link]


  • 1st revert: [1] 11:16 - 11:52, 19 October 2008
  • 2nd revert: [2] 16:33, 19 October 2008
  • 3rd revert: [3] 16:56, 19 October 2008
  • 4th revert: [4] 17:17 - 17:47, 19 October 2008
  • 5th revert: [5] 18:35, 19 October 2008


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]

This is not the first edit war the user has been involved in on that page within the past ten days, but edit warred over the inclusion of the individual in the category "History of pederasty". The user is persisting in promoting a fringe theory as something that is more than a fringe theory. The major scholars in the field feel that there is just not enough information for various claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the substance of all 5 edits was to the same purpose -- trying to recast theories or speculation on the part of sources to unqualified statements of fact -- I concur with this report. Haiduc is an experienced editor and is well aware of our policies, so he should have known better than to do this. Nandesuka (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with this block. Haiduc's reversions were not of the same material, though they were all in the same "genre". There's a bit of a discrepency here between Haiduc's actions (and he block) and Ottava Rima's actions (and no block). Tznkai, would you revisit? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
See my comment on Haiduc's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment Reviewing: 2nd and 3rd are plain reverts to parts of the first revert, looking to confirm revert 1, 4 and 5 are a bit fuzzier, but probably constitute edit warring. Reviewing other involved editors conduct now.--Tznkai (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursIts like opening a can of Pandora's personal leviathan catching worms in there, but Haiduc has definitely edit warred. Haiducs behavior here is troubling, but not vandalism, Ottava Rima is asked to be more careful with that particular piece of jargon, and the interaction between the two of them is very troubling, with several reversions from Ottava Rima as well. All in all though, Haiduc has crossed the edit warring line with both feet, while Ottava has not. Each of the first four cited edits is an example of edit warring by obvious reversion or by substance, mostly fighting over the word "speculate," the last is moderately lame, but not strictly speaking a reversion. Ottava Rima is reminded that this is not in anyway an invitation to use the next 24 hours to go on a reverting rampage.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg CommentFinal comment: Ottava is at, by my count 3 reversions himself, and is warned that he is close to having violated 3RR himself--Tznkai (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Acknowledged, and I don't plan on reverting that page anymore, as hopefully this will draw enough attention to the page to snip this in the bud in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecemaml reported by RedCoat10 (Result: 48 hour block )[edit]

Despite calls for consensus and rational discussion by multiple editors (who have all requested that the article be returned to the 19th October version), the user has continued to revert and has now violated the three-revert rule. This is also not the first edit-war the user has been involved in on that page within the last few weeks. I think he needs to cool down. Thanks, RedCoat10talk 17:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Ecemaml for 48 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Westie Boy reported by Hi540 (Result: 24 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [7]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Hi540 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Liam2012 reported by Duribald (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [12]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [17]

Keeps adding non-notable info to Natalie Portman article. -Duribald (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Joecooooooool reported by Roguegeek (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [18]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [23]

This is a pretty simple one. Since it's so current and there are a number of editors watching it, I have a feeling I'll be adding a 5th and 6th revert soon as well. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked Joe for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:300wackerdrive reported by guyzero | talk (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 300wackerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:53, 20 October 2008 (edit summary: "")
  2. 18:58, 20 October 2008 (edit summary: "Take it to Talk and get consensus for these edits that you've made over the weekend.")
  3. 19:01, 20 October 2008 (edit summary: "Take it to Talk and get consensus for the edits you made unilaterally over the weekend, LotLE")
  4. 21:00, 20 October 2008 (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */ Since we now have consensus, I am not edit warring. This is the new consensus version")
  • Diff of warning: here


guyzero | talk 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked 300wackerdrive for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Langdell reported by LoveMonkey (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [24]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [30] in leu of


Check to make sure that the reported user has been warned before their 4th revert (if the user has made more than 4 reverts, make sure that they've been warned before his/her last revert). This can be ignored at the admin's discretion if the user is considered "experienced" (erudite with policy) and/or if they have been blocked for 3RR violations in the past.

Langdell has engaged in an protracted editwar on the article gnosis this the second time Langdell has engaged in a 3rr this appears to be a WP:OWN. User Langdell also abused WP:POLICY by placing WIKI warning Wikipedia:Disruptive editing on my talkpage [31] and another editor's [32]which appears to be an attempt to frustate by using Wikipedia:Vandalism to WP:Game the system. (LoveMonkey (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Malformed report: There is some edit warring going on between the involved parties but I can't seem to decipher anything. In some of the reverts there are restorations of grammatical errors and some apparent copyvio. I'll let another admin step in. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked for 24h, on the grounds of 3RR (maybe not strictly within 24h but close enough), previous form, and absence of talk William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever reported by User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [33]



User has repeatedly added Panama (and Mexico) back to the list of countries recognizing the "Republic of Macedonia", despite a Hellenic Foreign Ministry announcement today refuting precisely that. User is well aware of the 3RR rule. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Result - I have blocked Balkan for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

71.62.25.129 reported by Yilloslime (Result: 8h)[edit]

User also claims to have had conversations with the article subject, so there is possibly a conflict of interest here too. Yilloslime (t) 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Modernist (Result: no violation)[edit]

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

  • 1st revert:

[40]

  • 2nd revert:

[41]

  • 3rd revert:

[42]

  • 4th revert:

[43]

The final revert came after discussion here:[44] and here:[45] and repeated warnings here including 3RR warning:[46]Modernist (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This editor often behaves in a way that belies rationale discussion, he seems to own this article in particular...Modernist (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not at all clear to me why the 4th "revert" [47] is a revert. Please explain. Until you do, no vio William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically it's become an issue concerning this link:Frida Kahlo fan site that has been deleted repeatedly and currently is under discussion. As it stands now - you appear to be correct, - the last delete includes that link, and things remain on the brink. Thanks for catching that last revert...I can withdraw this as you have pointed out. Modernist (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Gimmetrow reported by User:Malleus Fatuorum (Result: 8h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [48]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [53]

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

8h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Cubfan789 reported by Sesshomaru (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [54]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [59]

Editor has violated 3RR by continuously making the same nonsense edits more than three times, and has even resorted to leaving personal attacks [60] on his/her talk page despite warnings. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not clear that the edits are nonense, but they are 4R, so 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks for looking into it anyway. Do you think it's ok if I made a few tweaks to cleanup some of the user's unhelpful edits? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Best not to. I've just rolled it back; this doesn't express my opinion of the content, only that he broke 3RR in doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Curiosity kickin' up here: what happens if (s)he reverts once more after their block ends? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Its a 24h block so doesn't trigger 3RR. It would likely be considered edit warring; that would depend William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kd7iyt reported by ComputerGuy (Result: no violation )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: link


  • Diff of 3RR warning: link

The user Kd7iyt (talk · contribs) has been adding inappropriate and unreferenced content when I tell him not to do so. He revrets the real history of the Lakewood School District (Washington) article and adds unreferenced content that is unverifiable. I would like some admins to look at this user and do further actions if the user vandalizes anymore. ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Kd7iyt (talk · contribs) has not made a single revert today, and only one within the last 24 hours. The previous reverts were made over 3 days ago, and the current state of things does not really constitute a block. Tiptoety talk 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

86.151.125.184 reported by Thegreyanomaly (Result: 24h all round)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [61]


  • Previous version reverted to: [67]


  • Previous version reverted to: [74]


This POV vandal editor needs to be censured at minimum. They also need to be educated in WP:CIV. See the attacks s/he made on his/her talk page User talk: 86.151.125.184, User talk:Jehochman's and [79] and my talk User_talk:Thegreyanomaly#POK_term

All warnings were given in edit summaries. They continually have been making similar edits in several other Kashmir-related articles including Azad Kashmir, Wakhan Corridor. I believe the three above are the ones where 3/+RRs were violated. Give that they are a dynamic IP their vandalism is a little harder to detect.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for 24h blocking them, I hope they will learn their lesson, however I would just like to remind you that this user is a dynamic IP. 86.153.131.239, 86.158.239.198, 86.158.234.151, 86.158.177.195, 86.158.177.97, etc. are all him/her too. I believe a range block might be necessary because those other IPs are free for this user to edit under. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And I hope you do too. 24h. Sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins can clearly see that my edits are not vandalistic i hope the admins are less bias than William who only sees through one lense 86.162.66.35 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoffmannm reported by Kman543210 (Result: Blocked 12 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [80]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [87] (gave additional warning after this but continued to revert even after warned and reported)

User made first edit on October 20 and has been reverted by several different editors for a few different reasons. There was a discussion on the talk page regarding the edits, but the user continues to insert the material against the removal of several users and not discussing on talk page. It looks like after user was warned on talk page, he reverted again without logging in with IP 84.21.34.232 (user acknowledged not logging in) and removed the warnings from his talk page.(Kman543210 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 12 hours--Tikiwont (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Londo06 reported by Tony1 (Result: 31 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [88]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [93]

I have made three reversions, I plan to make no further additions to that page within a 24-hour period. I had offered the option to come to the talk page which was declined. I plan to make no further ammendments to the page.Londo06 11:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Checked again; still only 3 reversions made by myself.Londo06 11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Early today, the user announced at CONTEXT talk that s/he had made the change to the style guide, without prior discussion or stated rationale; the changes have been reverted by two users, one of them myself, asking in our edit summaries for discussion at talk. Tony (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I can still only see three reversions made by myself.Londo06 11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWalker reported by PC78 (Result: gets lucky)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [94]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [100]

Note: Edit war concerns the wikilink to United States in the infobox; this appears to be related to the report immediately above. PC78 (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously in violation, but seems more in need of a Stern Warning than a block William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ALR reported by Dogue (Result: go read the rules)[edit]

ALR persists in deleting verifiable article sourced from the New York Times saying the NYTimes is speculating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DCEETA&oldid=246748310

  • Previous version reverted to: [101]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [105]

Dogue (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rejected. Go read the rules William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus reported by SkyWriter (result: 72h)[edit]

Inigmatus is continuing an edit war on the same page for which he has been blocked twice already.

His point is attached to a content dispute in which he is trying to obscure that Messianism is a Christian movement, and that (instead) belief in Jesus and the New Testament is authentic Judaism.


  • 1st revert: [106] (reverting a revert of his tendentious fact tag
  • 2nd revert: [107]
  • 3rd revert: [108]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [109]

SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This isn't the place for reporting edit warring (no, I don't know what the correct place is). Your report is rejected on the grounds that it only contains 3 reverts. However, I looked at the edit history, which has at least 4, so Ig gets blocked anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Inigmatus reported by SkyWriter[edit]

[Note: the original report got hideously messed up with unsigned comments from Ig, who needs to learn some self discipline. It was impossible to disentangle, and I didn't try. The above is restored from the original filing William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)]

Inigmatus is continuing an edit war on the same page for which he has been blocked twice already. (An edit war assumes intent to force a POV. As demonstrated here [110] the intent of the "3rd edit" which wasn't even a revert, was an honest mistake assuming that such an edit is a revert - which it is not - and even then the addition not intended as an edit war since inigmatus clearly demonstrated his intent to self-revert the third disputed edit.)

(1st ban was for actual content dispute, second ban was for misunderstanding between two editors who one thought he was making a disputed change when in fact he was not and the other party was just reverting his edits because she saw his name in the history log and didn't bother reading the edits that were actually being made and assumed he was reverting disputed content. She got banned, and inigmatus got banned for telling the admin not to ban her for the misunderstanding).

His point is attached to a content dispute in which he is trying to obscure that Messianism is a Christian movement, and that (instead) belief in Jesus and the New Testament is authentic Judaism. (there is no obscuration, since the article fleshes it out already in detail.)

The 3rd revert was undone by a self-revert carried out by another editor. Please see: [111] and [112] as attempts by Inigmatus to self-revert the change so as not to be in violation of 3RR. Last editor reverted before inigmatus could self-revert; and I personally find SkyWriter's constant harassment of 3RR on Inigmatus over various kinds of edits to change the article lede to be acceptable to all parties, to be willfully wikilawyering a disputed article, and I request that this 3RR warning violation report be removed since all other editors assume good faith, and have reached out even when there are multiple confusing 3RR issues between all editors involved. Currently a WP:MEDCAB has been created by Inigmatus in an attempt to resolve the dispute and Inigmatus's input in resolving the dispute is necessary to move consensus further. inigmatus (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


  • 1st revert: [113] (reverting a revert of his tendentious fact tag
  • 2nd revert: [114] (which clearly requests editors to not remove fact-tag because it is being brought to WP:MEDCAB's attention for resolution.)
  • 3rd revert: [115] (not even a revert, so I am not even sure why this is included. "Jewish" was added because fact-dispute was not desired by other editors, so to be consistent with source the word "Jewish" was added since source says "Jewish/Christian movement." Why this edit is counted as a revert of the fact tag, is not understood and leads me to suspect this is 3RR wikilwayering beyond this point to ban a contributing editor to the article from commenting on the dispute.)
  • And then "3rd revert" is self-reverted anyways: [116] but another editor self-reverted for him, and apparently this fact was ignored by the user reporting this 3RR violation.


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [117]

SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whenever an admin gets to this -- please look in the history for the actual report. It's getting mangled with unsigned edits from Inigmatus. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWriter can you please back off. There was no 3RR violation, and you are making stuff up. Besides, the "3rd" revert you posted change was about to be self-reverted anyways by myself [118] before another editor got to it for me. Please look at your talk page. You refusal to dialog with me is proof of your bad faith [119] concerning me, and proof that you are only here to wikilaywer me to oblivion, and I ask that you please quit your harassment. inigmatus (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the diff's posted above, and looking directly at history at best there are 2 edits, 2 reverts, and one correction. This also has a MedCab request in place, as well as suggestions for compromise have been ignored by SkyWriter, and apparently NO attempt at dispute resolution by SkyWriter either. Which is in the instructions to be followed prior to using the Administrators Notice Board. I believe "3O" was prematurely pulled as this issue need outside objective review. I have attempted to do so as an editor and have received a purely antagonistic response. NoTsuris (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 reported by Wikidemon (Result: 1 week)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [link]


  1. 03:53, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* More ACORN workers charged with forgery in new states in 2008 */ new section")- new section but was repeat of earlier proposal, hence reversion of a removal; not necessary to establish b/c editor is at 6RR anyway
  2. 05:21, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */ OK, you wanna just delete stuff and act like a spoiled child?")
    05:24, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */")
    05:25, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */")
  3. 11:54, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */ Stop your partisan whitewashing. Stop your campaign to WP:OWN the article. Declaring me "persona non grata" without community suppport proves you're trying to own it")
    11:56, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Voter registration */")
  4. 15:20, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "GoodDamon and 300wackerdrive support this version. You do not have consensus for you removal of this well-sourcedd material. Please stop provoking an editwar")
  5. 18:45, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 247223128 by PhGustaf (talk)")
  6. 18:51, 23 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 247224430 by Bali ultimate (talk)")
  • No specific 3RR warning given; however, above are deliberate, tendentious attempts to edit war and not a mere technical violation. Editor is a prolific POV SPA and is well aware of prohibition against edit warring, having been blocked for it already. Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
2008-10-23T19:15:41 SheffieldSteel (Talk | contribs | block) blocked WorkerBee74 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder reported by RetroS1mone (Result: Blocked )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [120]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [128]

Guido den Broeder has a history of disruptive editing. Guido is an activist for CFS disease and has a very fringe idea that CFS and ME are separate diseases. When Guido does not agree with some article a tag is placed without discussion and Guido fights to keep the tag even after issues are discussed and consensus reached. RetroS1mone talk 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions clearly states "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt" whatever he has stated on talk page that it does not - Blocked for escalating time of 1 month. Note: has placed an unblock request, as is of course entitled to, so look to his talk page for any further admin opinions on the block. David Ruben Talk 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ward3001 reported by wontonkok (Result: warned)[edit]

My apologies for being unable to decypher this form, I can't even figure out how to report this abuse any other way.

Yesterday and now today, Ward3001 has endeavored to engage in an edit-war, repeatedly adding information regardless of WP:NOT and the consensus of multiple users that the information he insists on adding is completely irrelevant.

Since it was first added on Aug 25, the information in question has been added and deleted numerous times, but until yesterday, it had been present for only 4 days out of the 53 days since its initial creation, or 2 days in the 51 days since it was first deleted.

He has repeatedly threatened me (see my talk page) with administrative action and has refused every single attempt (I lost count after 10) I have made to resolve the situation in some other manner than being attacked.

At his insistence, I created an RFC, which so far has come to the consensus that the information in question does not belong, yet he refuses both to abide by the current results and to allow multiple comments to be made, preferring instead to reinitiate another edit-war.

The informataion in question is completely irrelevant, makes judgments solely on heresay, and is potentially damaging to the reputation of the person it pertains to in the way the information is presented. (I realize that for you or I, being labeled "Republican" is no big deal, but for someone who works in a place where "conservative" is a dirty word, it is indeed damaging.) It is this third reason that I must insist that it stays off the main page until the conflict can be resolved.

In short, he is bullying, ignoring the rules he bludgeons others with, and his actions border on vandalism.

I trust an admin's judgment in this situation so I'll keep my comments to a minimum (but I'll respond to any questions). I wanted to acknoweldge that both Wontonkok and I are guilty of incivility, and I'll accept any consequences an admin decides is appropriate. I also wanted to correct some falsehoods and exaggerations by Wontonkok. I did not give him a 3RR warning; that was done by another editor. I have not violated 3RR, and I'll let an admin decide if either or both of us have edit warred. I did not insist that Wontonkok set up an RFC. I did not even ask Wontonkok to do so, although I do not object to his doing it. (Indidentally, the RFC was not set up properly, as it did not show up on the RFCbio list. I'll try to fix it when I have more time, unless someone else prefers to handle that). I have not vandalized or violated WP:BLP. I re-inserted one sentence in the article that is properly sourced and, by most standards, minimally controversial (attending a fundraising dinner for John McCain). It certainly is not "hearsay"; it's in a reputable source. The sentence had been removed several days previously without an edit summary; it was in the article when the RFC was set up. My only goal was to get the article as it was when the RFC was set up and then let the RFC run its course. But I can see clearly that Wontonkok will remove the information at any cost, so I don't care to continue this conflict, and I'll wait for the RFC to finish (after it is set up properly). I'll stop there and let an admin do what needs to be done. I'm happy to answer questions. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned – for the record, both users are edit warring. That said, the text that was added is not supported by the reference, as the article says nothing about a donation; so, I understand the claim to the biographies of living persons policy (incorrectly sourced information is still unsourced information) and therefore the exception to the rule; for, unsourced information is better removed from the article than allowed to remain in it. Since there is an ongoing RFC regarding this information, I highly suggest keeping it off of the article until the assertion matches the source; and, then, if there is consensus to add it from the RFC, then do so; if not, then don't. --slakrtalk / 04:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Question: Thanks for your comments. If the statement said that she attended the fundraising event (nothing about donation), is that properly sourced? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Question: If the item in question is neither notable nor relevant, does it being properly sourced make it notable or relevant enough for inclusion? Wontonkok (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

[[User:|]] reported by [[User:|]] (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]

I have been monitoring the discussions behind the article The Syn. Bondegezou seems to have used the defense under Wikipedia Policy and banned the user Umbrello. However, if you visit Bondgegou's Web site, you will see his tone and bias. Bondegezou's reporting is one sided, biased, opinion based (specifically to fan related articles). If you need a first hand witness, we can provide that for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.192.90 (talkcontribs)

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. But this is not a case for this board anyways. Rather 24.47.192.90 seems to be User:Umbrellos IP and will be advised / warned, accordingly. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lucian Sunday reported by Masem (Result: No action)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [129]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [135]

This is a policy page; the user added text that was new to the page, and was reverted; he continued to add text, claiming to "Please contribute to talk", but there is no talk page discussion from him/her at all about the change in policy. The reverts back to the former version have all come from different editors, regulars of the page. Given this is a predominate policy page, the WP:BRD cycle needs to be upheld, and this user has not shown that yet. --MASEM 15:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This editor removed a 3RR warning from his Talk page, with the comment 'My God where do they get these people', which suggests he's not feeling too diplomatic at the moment. I have urged him to reconsider his actions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have self reverted as a precautionary measure]. I will comment further in a moment. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That comment was based inter alia on an unfounded accusation of Vandalism. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"but there is no talk page discussion from him/her at all about the change in policy". Please follow the link at 1st revert and 4th revert above. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was mistaken on the no discussion, however, you were told about how changes to pages to work per that discussion, and you did, technically, violate the 3RR rule. You've reverted back, so there's no need for further action unless you continue to make changes before seeking consensus on the talk page. --MASEM
You have accused me of Vandalism. Do you stand by that? Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts I made this comment on Masem's talk page. I believe he has failed to respond in an appropriate manner. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No action. Since the editor self-reverted, and has stopped the war, there's no need to take any further admin action on this 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikitestor/User:Korlzor and his array of IP sockpuppets reported by User:HJensen (Result: Blocks)[edit]