Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive95

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

Noticeboard archives


Abbatai reported by Marshal Bagramyan (result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]

This user has consistently failed to provide reliable sources to support his claims which have surpassed the borders of simple vandalism. Despite numerous attempts to settle the issues on the talk page, the user combatively taunted others and broke into a tirade accusing all those reverting him of "spreading Anti-Turkish propaganda" and has begun to turn Wikipedia into a battleground broken by ethnic lines [6]. In either case, he is inserting information which is propagandist in nature and seeks to fudge the truth on the Armenian Genocide. His disruptive edits have spread to other pages, as a quick check on his contributions will show.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

He has now violated 3RR on other pages as well and continues reverting on Igdir.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

MusicInTheHouse reported by FFMG (Result: 24h)[edit]

There are many more edits, (and 3RR), on other pages all related to the user trying to insert a copyrighted image. There is a discussion ongoing on the Rugby project page about the image and until then no image should be used. FFMG (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reported by TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: semi)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [17]

  • 1st revert: [18]
  • 2nd revert: [19]
  • 3rd revert: [20]
  • 4th revert: [link]

additionally from an ongoing sock investigation:

User has already broken 3RR on Tim Hasselbeck by using other socks:

  • Diff of removal of 3RR warning: [21]

as well as previous warnings [22] and [23];

At Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the IP continues to add specific birthdates for non-notable minors, despite consensus otherwise on the talk page. The IP has been blocked for the 3rr violation at Tim Hasselbeck for returning NPOV BP:BLP content. And has been warned about 3rr edits returning material violating WP:FAIR at Girlfriends -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't spell. Anyway, semi for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


The editor has returned under another IP after being notified that the ip had been blocked ([24]). The new edtis have continued to violate 3rr and WPBLP issues ([25]). -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I wasnt aware that redpen had tricked u all once again in2 a block. Let me look. Meanwhile isnt redpen too supposed 2 not be editing 4 24hrs? The links I added to Matt LeBlanc are imdb,eonline, & femalefirst. What blog is redpen talking about? (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reported by Adolphus79 (Result: semi)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [26]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

I, among a couple other editors have tried to clean this article up, removing unencyclopdic content such as a complete listing of the menu, and what kind of music the restaurant plays, etc... the IP reverts anyone that tries to change the article at all... I have tried discussing the changes with the user, asking why they think a complete menu listing is notable or encyclopedic, I even suggested that they file a RfC... all they do is revert the changes saying that it is only opinion... They revert to a diff previous of other changes made to clean the article up also, with no apparent intentions to discuss this... I gave a 3RR warning, and asked that they discuss the changes on the article's talk page... they reverted the changes again, without any discussion... made a comment that the menu needs to be part of the article so that people know what each of the menu items is... considering that I have already given 3RR (and am on the verge of 3RR myself), I thought I would bring it here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WarthogDemon reporting User:Markharding93[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [34]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]

Article is currently under AFD discussion:

The user has repeatedly removed the notability tag from the page and re-adding content removed by at least three other users, not including myself. Has been warned numerous times. -WarthogDemon 23:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And has now done so again at . -WarthogDemon 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Offliner reported by User:Cmp7 (stale?)[edit]

User:Offliner has repeatedly and maliciously added, removed, disrupted, and falsely edited Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) to suit his personal agenda before anyone could even come to a consensus on the question of keeping or deleting the article. Offliner has rejected any consensus or right to free speech on Wikipedia and is alienating peoples rights as contributors to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talkcontribs) 00:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that cmp7 removed the proposed deletion template from the page before the issue was settled by an admin, and has already been issued a final warning regarding his disruptive editing. Regarding Offliner, nothing he did could be considered vandalism. He explained his edit both in the proposed deletion discussion, and in the edit summary, and I agree with him. LokiiT (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably stale, and anyway badly formatted William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reported by A2Kafir (Result: 24h)[edit]

I only just now warned an anonymous user about 3RR. I don't edit that much anymore, so I'm unsure how this type of thing is handled. But this user has only edited this article, and only to remove factual information repeatedly. A2Kafir (and...?) 22:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Even after warnings on his talk page, IP has reverted twice more without discussion. [53] [54] Dayewalker (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FDAU reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48h)[edit]

  1. 13:46 28 March
  2. 17:12 28 March
  3. 18:54 28 March
  4. 22:37 28 March
  5. 09:51 29 March
  6. 11:20 29 March

Just came off another block for the same issue, re-kindling a mass edit war. Fut.Perf. 22:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Of which edit war, once more, Fut. Perf. is a major party [55]. I have flagged his persistent edit warring in his previous report about FDAU [56], however he didn't seem to change his behaviour. It is obvious Future Perfect at Sunrise editing behaviour in the article Greece clearly constitutes edit warring, as defined in WP:EDITWAR: "For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits."--Avg (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on further consideration, I'm more and more convinced that this account is a sock of banned user User:Mywayyy anyway. Same revert-warring, same style, same editing profile (Greek air traffic, economics, "developed countries", removing Turkish names from placename articles), same IP range [57]. Can we indef him? Fut.Perf. 11:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur; this is clearly a Mywayyy sockpuppet. Well spotted - might I suggest a checkuser on that account to see if there are any other socks lurking on that IP range? (You'll recall how Mywayyy used an entire farm of socks; I wouldn't be surprised to find that he's up to the same thing this time.) I agree with Fut. Perf's recommendation for an indefinite block. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen reported by Hamitr (Result: 12 hours )[edit]

  • Diff of previous 3RR warning for same article: [63]
  • Diff of more recent warning between 2nd and 3rd revert today: [64]

--Hamitr (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit more background information in case it is helpful. User Hauskalainen keeps adding an extensive list of UK laws restricting firearms, knives, etc. The content was discussed on the talk page March 14 - 20, and then the content was removed with the consensus that it belonged in other articles like Firearm laws in the United Kingdom, etc.
Since that removal, Hauskalainen has reverted the removal (re-added the material) twice on March 20, and then the three four times listed above.[65][66]
--Hamitr (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 12 hours See below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Toarchives reported by Chuckiesdad (Result: 1 week )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [67]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [72]

Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

2009-03-29T07:11:00 Sandstein (talk | contribs | block) blocked Toarchives (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 reported by Fut.Perf (result: no action)[edit]

  1. 22 March, 11:58
  2. 22 March, 12:35
  3. 24 March, 17:43
  4. 25 March, 12:12
  5. 26 March, 15:08
  6. 27 March, 13:09
  7. 29 March, 09:32

Slow but long-term edit war (1 rv/day), also on multiple other articles (see contribs on 23 March c.19:30 and 22 March c.12:00). User is alone against several others in insisting on a purely symbolic flag image with no factual encyclopedic information (apparently, for him, a POV issue, about promoting the importance of the EU). User has multiple previous blocks for EU-related revert warring. Fut.Perf. 10:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Lear 21 has not been part of edit warring according to Wikipedia policy. Lear 21 has uphold content from an FA article (Germany) which was established for half a year by now. User Lear 21 has properly argued at talk pages to uphold the content consisting of two images. At the talk pages 2 users expressed their critic of the 2 images and 2 users signalized support, one the supporters were Lear 21. User Future Perfect at Sunrise on the other hand has been not part of any discussion concerning the removal of content of the respective article (Germany). User Future Perfect at Sunrise has been reminded by Lear 21 [73] that his deletion actions at the Germany article are undiscussed but refused to take part of any discussions nevertheless. At the very moment the procedure of Future Perfect at Sunrise actions including this report here tends to be rather abusive while at the same time ignoring several Wikipedia guidelines. Lear 21 (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lear 21 has been reverting edits for which there is a wide consensus with strong arguments against those images on the talkpage of the article in question. There are at least 2 sections about this topic on article talk and several more on various user talk pages. --Tone 12:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. I really don't see this as serious enough yet for a block or warning; but it might be if it continues or escalates. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hauskalainen reported by O Fenian (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [74]

The discussion on the talk page seems against the inclusion of that section, but Hauskalainen will not accept it and keeps edit warring. O Fenian (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)



This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reported by SoWhy (Result: Dealt with at WP:ANI)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [80]


I also reported the 3RR violations and the legal threat at WP:ANI as well, removed the report at WP:AIV. Momusufan (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. User was blocked for making legal threats by Jayron32 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) following aforementioned report to ANI. This report is thus void. Regards SoWhy 18:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reported by Pfainuk (24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [86]
  • First revert: [87] (
  • Second revert: [88] (
  • Third revert: [89] (Moncho)
  • Fourth revert: [90] (Moncho)
  • Fifth revert: [91] (
  • Sixth revert: [92] (

Two related IPs and one account, all reverting to exactly the same thing with no edit summary and believed to be the same person. None have significant contribution histories. Pfainuk talk 19:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)



This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC) and reported by TastyPoutine (Result: semi)[edit]

Two users have been involved in a tag team on Warner Robins, Georgia. The effort has been involved in creating an attack section on some local resident. Aside from the notion that such a section on your private citizen would not be appropriate for an article on an entire city, the users have been warned that their assertions are not sourced by reliable sources. Both users were warned last night. The only talk the users have engaged in were inappropriate edits to my talk page here and here

Diffs of reverts:

Warnings to both users[edit]

TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi protected for a while seems easiest William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom reported by (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

Warning : [101]
Information.svgAndrea Anders (actress) 3rr warning
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in [[Andrea Anders (actress) or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Add any other comments and sign your name here -->

stalker redpen has been stalking me since 22Mar. For this encounter, redpen stalked me to Andrea Anders. My edits are those attributed to User_talk: & Special:Contributions/ ip changed). I simply corrected The Class to The Class (TV series) & redpen reverted saying wpblp [102], yet I added no bio info! I then decided to add sources 4 the info that was already in the article that I didnt add but still redpen reverted.
If you will please take the time you'll see that redpen is following me throughout wiki & reverting all my edits. Please intervene. Thanks. (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was wearily predictable. RP also counselled to caution in reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Y is redpen only counseled but earlier this week I was blocked? (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

william you said TheRedPenOfDoom would be blocked for 24hours but I still see editing. (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No... I said someone was blocked, but it was the anon, not RP William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Legitimate reverts by RedPen of unsourced information per WP:BLP. IP, if you want to add information to Wikipedia, you need to have a reliable source. Grsz11 03:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

will: U didnt make this clear. The format of this page has the result indicating a block of the person reported on. Your bias continues to show. Did u look @ the edits? Had u done so you woulda seen there was no wpblp violated by me. (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:InternetReader2 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Changes in one or two words in the title of the added section don't seem significant. He's been told it's irrelevant to the article, both on his talk page, and on the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted 3 times already. Would someone please help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
OOPS, make that 4. I reverted numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7. However, he should already have been blocked by now. Grumble. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)



User blocked as sock puppet/evading blocks by another admin. Nja247 08:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Cannibaloki reported by User: (Result: Warned)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [103]
  • First revert: [104]
  • Second revert: [105]
  • Third revert: [106]
  • Fourth revert: [link]
  • Diff of WP:3RR warning: [link]

User:Cannibaloki placed a PROD on article 2 in 1 AFTER it survived an AfD. I deproded article, but user:Cannibaloki place back the PROD 3 times. Discussion is on my talk page (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)



User was unclear of PROD template procedures, which has now been explained to them on their talk page. Nja247 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 reported by Chuck Marean (Result: no vio)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: link
  • First revert: link seem to be simply in support of this TW revert link.

my paragraph was so good I feel like I'm being ganged up against by accounts trying to get me to revert three times. Maybe I'm wrong, but saying the scientist is not a climatologist makes me feel they probably did not read the paragraph I wrote.



This is not a violation of the three revert rule. Please discuss issues with other editors on the article's talk page and consider dispute resolution if needed. Nja247 08:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Ronz (Result: Warn)[edit]

In Pizzle:
  1. 08:05, 29 March 2009
  2. 22:57, 29 March 2009
  3. 01:35, 30 March 2009
  4. 01:42, 30 March 2009
  5. 01:49, 30 March 2009
  6. 02:09, 30 March 2009
In User talk:Ronz:
  1. 01:56, 30 March 2009
  2. 2:13, 30 March 2009
  3. 02:23, 30 March 2009
  4. 02:48, 30 March 2009

I think we can get the problems with Pizzle under control, but I'd like him to stop with the edit-warring on my talk page. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at [[User:Ronz|Ronz] for edit warring in this article as he has made 9 edits in the last 48 hours to the pizzle page ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)



IP has now been warned of proper procedure on their talk page. Nja247 08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Unionsoap reported by User:ProperlyRaised (Result:no action)[edit]


Hello, I would like to ask for administrator intervention in this ongoing edit war. I have provided information to this user (Unionsoap) regarding the subject of this page, and it continually is being reverted to a version which uses only unverified and unsubstantiated sources (such as wordpress weblogs, blogspot weblogs, personal Web sites, and press release style information.) In addition, the only verified notability that this individual has is as the author of two books, and the version which I (and another administrator) revert to includes only that information. In addition, some areas of this (brief) entry are just plain wrong; this individual was never a model (as the public directories and agencies lack an entry for her) and her place of origin (San Francisco South Bay) is not an actual place. I think this must be some sort of fan but I don't think Wiki is a fan site.

May I ask that the version that excludes the weblog (unverified) information be re-instated, which was the version by the administrator, and that the version be "locked" against future edits? Perhaps this could all just sort of die down if it were locked on a version that includes only verified information.

May I also ask that this article be considered for deletion? Other than the books, which were published by a vanity press, this person's only claim to fame appears to be as the girlfriend of a German princeling.

Thank you kindly, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProperlyRaised (talkcontribs)


This section is to be edited on Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedialy by the administrator processing this report.

  • There's no 3RR vio here, the article hasn't been edited in 3 days, and its at your version. No reason to bring this here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bosonic dressing reported by Anon (no action)[edit]

I previously made a suggestion to User:The Ogre regarding the Latin America page, and they gave their support for it. It was put into the article, but then User:Bosonic dressing reverted, again, and again, and again, and again. In this edit, the user claimed they would continue to edit war until they had "agreed" to the edits. I agree that I am one edit over the limit, but this user has reverted 5 times, and I have stopped reverting, and instead took it here.

A look at his talk page before he last blanked it reveals no less than 5 previous warnings for various things, yet going back further one can see even more that have been blanked [107] [108] [109] [110].

It appears that all in all this user's stay here on wikipedia has been far from non-disruptive, and a break may be neccessary to give them time to learn the rules. (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation This board is for 3RR violations or serious edit-warring, not forum-shopping. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a 3RR violation. (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, not unless the Earth day is now the length of the Martian one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't read it all the way through. The user made an explicit threat to continue to edit war until he agreed with the article. (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reported by Blueboar (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [111]

Also clearly sockpuppeting under a different IP: (see: [118])

Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)



The .184 IP has been blocked, and the article has been s-protected in case he/she shows up using a different IP. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours by User:Akradecki. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reported by Kuyabribri (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [120]

KuyaBriBriTalk 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)



This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reported by O Fenian (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [127]
  • Diff of WP:3RR warning: Editor previously blocked for making this edit, along with many other IPs in the page's recent history

Editor is a single purpose account only interested in removing the term "British Isles" based on nothing more than their own opinion, ignoring what sources say and having no interest in any consensus that includes the term. Editor has previously been blocked for edit warring over this, evaded the block, continued to edit war, page protected to prevent further block evasion, then as soon as the protection wears off it is back to square one. O Fenian (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)



This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Peterlewis reported by Nja247 (Result:24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [132]
  • First revert: [133]
  • Second revert: