Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive96

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

69.204.200.237 reported by C.Fred (Result: Semi)[edit]

also previously blocked IP 217.44.144.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


  • Previous version reverted to: [1] is the last clean version


  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]
  • 5th revert: [6]
  • 6th revert, 1st as new IP: [7]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [8]
Notice of violation of 3RR but invitation to participate at talk page only: [9]
  • Diff of block notice to 1st IP: [10]


Seeking assistance from another administrator here since the key issue at this point is edit warring. IP editor removed a sourced section of text from the article claiming it was "Unproven libellous allegations". He was invited to participate in discussion but persisted in deleting the text.

I specifically told him that he had violated 3RR but I wanted to not block him so he could participate in discussion at the talk page. Note that he has deleted comments there [11] [12] although not related to the discussion of the issue at hand. Even after the specific warning, he persisted in deleting the text, for which I blocked his IP. A new IP, 69.204.200.237, then returned to make the same edit to the article.

This appears to be clearly the acts of a single editor, so I think this is the better venue that a request for page protection. I also want a fresh set of eyes to confirm that this is edit warring; until that determination is made, I'm not editing the article any further so I don't perpetuate the edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Update I have blocked 69.204.200.237 for making a legal threat.[13] If another IP returns, I'm escalating this matter to AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • One of the IPs made this revert, which deletes a comment saying that Kemp received a murder confession from Clive Derby-Lewis in South Africa. According this claim, Kemp left South Africa since his apparent cooperation with prosecutors caused him to lose face with fellow activists. I think this raises some WP:BLP issues, but I'll leave the rest of my comment at User talk:C.Fred. I don't object to C.Fred's semiprotection of the article, but suggest that he remove this disputed passage until it can be supported from mainstream sources. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Result - C.Fred semiprotected the article. The disputed section has been removed and the claim is reworded more cautiously. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TruHeir reported by Taharqa (Result: 24h - both editors)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [14]



User:TruHeir Is being extremely unreasonable and disruptive. He/she came out of nowhere blanking over tons of information in a thoughtless revert. I restored the previous version and he/she accusing me of vandalism for reverting his disruptive edits. I told him/her that they were being unreasonably and warned them of the 3rr (which he/she is obviously keenly aware of, attested by his contribs and familiarity with wiki icons as he/she posted on my talk page) in that they'd be blocked if he/she persisted. To no avail, the user ramained beligerant and disruptive, thus, I'm reporting him/her as indicated.Taharqa (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours - both editors are being unreasonable, edit warring and failing to engage on the talk page. The article is already semi-protected and I see no reason for it to be fully protected. Further edit warring will be met with increasing blocks. Black Kite 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As an FYI, soon as the block expired, TruHeir reverted again, and visa versa. No apparent lessons learned with block one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Optfx reported by Dayewalker (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [19]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]

User is edit warring to insert a section of original research into these two articles (Yahoo diffs shown for ease of reading). User is also editing as 79.226.56.248 (talk · contribs), as seen from his edit history and this comment [26]. Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also edited as 79.226.57.76 (talk · contribs)/ --ZimZalaBim talk 02:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey reported by CENSEI (Result: no action )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [link]


User Warned [31]

Chronic drama magnet Scjessey has once again decided to join in an edit war on a political article and has not only demonstrated his repeated propensity to edit war but has also violated 3RR on this one. CENSEI (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

speedy close please - yet another serial retaliatory report brought by topic banned editor, continuing to go after editors he was topic banned for harassing, and who should not be meddling here. Wikidemon (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The 3rd and 4th reverts were reverts of anonymous IP inclusion of unsourced content on a BLP and removal of a POV tag by another anonymous IP. No 3RR infraction here. - ALLST☆R echo 03:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Adding unsourced content, even on a BLP, is not in and of itself a reason to Rv and get away with it (especialy when the comment is not overtly defamatory), and removal of a tag is also not a Rv freebe. And to Wikidemon, what can I say except red herring. CENSEI (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I can assure you that BLP comes before anything else, even your agenda. Also, the fact that you "warned" him for 3RR AFTER filing your report here, is funny. - ALLST☆R echo 03:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The third edit is a completely uncontroversial removal of an out of place attempt by an IP editor to insert a poorly formed Wikilink; the fourth is to remove an unexplained article tag that was accompanied by an incorrect statement that the matter had been discussed on the talk page. That's wikignoming, not edit warring. Wikidemon (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For your sake Allstarecho, I'll ignore that flagrant violationof WP:OUTING. CENSEI (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Hey! If I see that bullshit happen again, I will indef you both. Walk away, right now!.--Tznkai (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please also note: (1) Allstarecho has been blocked for the alleged outing[32] so that question is presumably resolved, and (2) this entire matter (edit warring at Barney Frank, CENSEI's role, and the alleged outing) are all under discussion currently at WP:AN/I in connection with a wider dispute. Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Closing this report as "no action": probably not a genuine 3RR vio, strong signs of it being a bad-faith or retaliatory report, and the article has been protected now anyway. Fut.Perf. 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

2009-04-07T08:01:44 Yandman (talk | contribs | block) blocked CENSEI (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Net contribution to the project is not positive.) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Truthbody reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: 24h)[edit]



Reverts by User:Truthbody

Truthsayer62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a possible sock puppet of Truthbody with a history of controversial edits and a block, also reverted once in the same period:

I object to this. I am not a sock-puppet of User:Truthbody. If you doubt this, check our IPs. I do not have a history of controversial edits, I am simply editing articles that are controversial. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the reason for the accusation, but your block log says you were blocked for using sock puppets in the past.[39]Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
then I would like to respectfully request that the log is changed because I have never used sock puppets. I and some other users (Atisha's cook (talk · contribs), Eyesofcompassion (talk · contribs) and Dspak08 (talk · contribs)) were blocked last Summer because we were all attending a conference in England while at the same time making edits on Wikipedia. It was noticed that we all had the same IP and were accused of sockpuppetry. When I informed the Admin Thatcher of the situation, we were all immediately unblocked. I'd be grateful, therefore, if the record could be changed. Thank you. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just reviewed the contribution history of those accounts. There may be some valid concerns about WP:MEAT. Since you are no longer at a conference, a WP:SSP should reveal different IPs, correct? Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please do check. I'm telling you the truth, I have nothing to hide. --Truthsayer62 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Emptymountains (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), another possible sock puppet. Greetings, Sacca 09:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [40]
  • Previous warning (March): [41]

User:Sacca is also pushing it, but so far has stayed within the letter of the law by reverting precisely 3 times in 24 hours... Jpatokal (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Causteau and User:Wapondaponda reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: 24h each)[edit]

  • Too many edits to list.

Two users have been warring over these two pages to a stunning degree. Both appear to have quit as of this moment, but outside intervention or comment is probably required. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They should know better. 24h. Amenable to unblock if they confess their sins and show repentance. Can we sentence people to recent changes patrol for 50 useful edits? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stevens reported by back2back2back (Result: 24h each)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [42]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]

I did not warn the user directly but he was well aware of wp:3rr.

Back2back2back (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you want anyone in particular blocked, or shall I just block everybody to be on the safe side? and are you sure you are guiltless? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did not violate 3RR. Most of my recent actions were reverted without any reasons given.Back2back2back (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. 24h each William M. Connolley (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User: 69.158.150.169 reported by User:AlexCovarrubias (Result: 72h)[edit]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

Not warned because user is well aware of this policy, link provided corresponds to his previous block.


Highly uncivil user (check edit summaries, comments), uses profanity and personal attacks, even in edit summaries (check history of article). Not first 3RR violation with this particular IP. User may be hiding behind this and other anon IP addresses (i.e. 216.234.60.106, consistent edit pattern with this IP and Corticopia) to avoid direct action against his main user account (User:Corticopia). A simple user check would reveal related IP addresses. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat inconsistently, I've blocked for 72h: 3rr (again) and incivility. Let me know if they start ip-hopping William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
More arbitrariness: User:Jcmenal gets 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

173.55.27.133 reported by Arcayne (Result: semi)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [49]


  • 1st revert: a, b
  • 2nd revert: a, b
  • 3rd revert: a, b
  • 4th revert: a, b

The anon has been warned repeatedly not to add unsourced, or poorly sourced info to BLPs, and this latest run of the same edit is part of a larger pattern that has repeated on at least 2 two prior occasions. As this is the second 3RR report filed on this user in less than a month for posting the same exact edits - the first instance, I had erred in counting each edit of the pair as a revert - something stronger than 'please knock it off' would appear to be in order. I think that a block with a 6-month topic ban on James Cawley might be the best way to allow this user to possibly develop their skills on a topic with which they appear to demonstrate some animosity. I suggest 6 months, as this allows for the Star Trek film to be released in the interim, and gives the user something else to work on.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocking IPs is generally a waste of time as they just get another. I've semi'd the article for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see that, but this IP has been editing from the same one for over a month. We don't give IPs a pass on 3RR, do we? Blocking sends a message that we protect our articles from vendetta-like behavior. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you have blocked me from editing and have taken my 1st Amendment right but you are allowed to write anything. I will let you put in James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek movie because he said it. I have printed out the Trekmovie page so do not have them delete it. Please add James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek Film. The reference being James own words....http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/editorial-james-cawley-on-the-new-star-trek-movie/

"121. James Cawley - November 12, 2008 To those of you who feel I have sold out etc. You are dead wrong. NO ONE loves The Orignal Star Trek more than me. No one is more devoted to it’s look and feel, for Christ’s sake, I own a full scale bridge set and play Kirk in my spare time! I have poured more of my life into classic Trek than I care to discuss. Being an extra in the film has nothing to do with my opinion either. "

Please tell me this is enough for you now and add that he was an extra. Thank you173.55.27.133 (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk)

I'm not sure what disturbs me more, your complete misunderstanding on the nature of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution, or that your defending it over an entertainment franchise.--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

82.9.115.117 reported by Aktsu (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [50]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: Not warned about 3RR, but told multiple times in the edit summaries to stop introducing unsourced (and most likely completly false) material. --aktsu (t / c) 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Warned now. Also, somebody not at 3R might want to revert the recent addition... --aktsu (t / c) 20:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

William C. Rader, Malibu stem cell doctor, reported by Minjul (Result: To be handled elsewhere)[edit]

William C. Rader is a well-documented M.D. Malibu psychiatrist who has received widespread negative media coverage for administering fetal stem cell treatments in the Caribbean. Rader's long-overdue Wikipedia entry was begun in February 2009, and the first reversal came on April 3, 2009, from User 96.251.169.2. According to Whois domain lookup, that IP address is registered to William C. Rader himself.

Rader (or possibly his wife) apparently substituted an unsourced FAQ from his Medra Inc. website, and was joined by User 76.95.150.85 (Whois) a few days later in similar edits. Ultimately the entry has been reduced to the online potted biography from the end of that "FAQ" page, shorn of all the mainstream media references. (Among other things, Rader's claim to have developed the treatment principles at the Betty Ford Clinic is false.)

New Wikipedia user Super1122 has only edited on Rader, making similar edits to 76.95.150.85, and has now hit a 3RR threshold. Can that user be notified and/or disciplined?

I think we will continue to see possibly involving these and other sockpuppets, and hope other users will be attentive to this activity. Will the Admins please bookmark this page, and keep an eye out? Question: with the edit from IP address 96.251.169.2, does William C. Rader qualify for Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles, or does he have to self-declare? Minjul (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New Wikipedia user Super1122 has only edited on Rader - really? And do you think we aren't capable of looking up your edit history [57]? This report is unformatted and belongs on WP:ANI or somesuch anyway. If you report people here, please (a) warn them beforehand about 3RR and (b) tell them you have reported them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I should hope you would look up my edit history. While hardly the last word on Rader, I certainly believe this is a more accurate biography than the copy pulled from Rader's own website (which I see now has a link to Medra Inc). I didn't know the procedure, but I will go notify Super1122 of 3RR. Should I also go to WP:ANI? Minjul (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the William C. Rader article to the last version that is not a word-for-word copy from the bio at the bottom of http://www.medra.com/faq.html. (It may interest you that copyright violations can be reverted without infringing WP:3RR). If Minjul believes there is a conflict of interest, then filing a report at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard should be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to be on the safe side of WP:BLP, which applies to noticeboards as well as articles, I have removed a set of quotes from the header of this report, and removed some negative comments from the first two sentences. Also changed the closing status to 'To be handled elsewhere.' EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Points taken, though I hope you won't quarrel with the use of quotation marks around the term "stem cell" when its used on Rader's page to characterize his treatment. I justify that by the (twice-cited) fact that legitimate stem cell scientists have been denied access to test or evaluate his product. It is uncertain whether Rader uses fetal precursors, stem cells, astrocytes... No one knows. Just to say, I'd argue that putting "stem cell" in quotation marks is not unwarranted, given the lack of foundation. Minjul (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey reported by Judas278 (Result: no vio)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [58]


  • 1st revert: [59]
  • 2nd revert: [60]
  • 3rd revert: [61]
  • 4th revert: [link]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [62]

Scjessey has made numerous personal attacks, Article Talk, and accused others and me of bad faith and questionable motives, My Talk, without justification. See also: this ANI he reported. He protects the article, has COI as detailed in the article talk, and is one-sided in demanding justifications from others, but made "Wholesale updates" without prior discussion, when he feels like it... --Judas278 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Scjessey[edit]

I have made 3 reversions in 24 hours, and thus I have not actually violated the three revert rule. I will self-revert my last edit if it is deemed appropriate; however, I believe that reverting the actions of an hostile SPA is not unreasonable. The reporting editor has confessed to being a disgruntled former customer who now seeks to use the article to attack the company. I am in the process of compiling a request for third party review, but I am not ready to submit it at this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Going back to my first edit you have repeatedly reverted my edits. You will note the substance of my first edit eventually stayed in the article with support of other editors. I do not have rose colored glasses about the company, but I have been very careful to make moderate, well sourced additions, while discussing removal of advertising-like text without sources. I am here because you recently removed npov and coi tags from last fall without first making significant improvements to the article or changing the OWN tendencies. --Judas278 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
(purported) Personal attacks aren't edit warring. Try another board.--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Dunno what the PA's are supposed to be. Sj called you a SPA, which is accurate. As an aside, I don't think it is reasonable for such a large proportion of the article to be prolems. But you'll have to take that elsewhere. Further edit warring, especially by SPA's, will be looked on unfavourably William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, Near the end of the current article talk, another editor recently added, "i really don't think you're treating Judas with respect and courtesy. i think you're being hostile, defensive about the company, failing to assume good faith, and you're doing a bit of bullying. until he's been sanctioned by an admin for his behavior, i don't think you should be acting this hostile towards him. some of the things you're saying about him could even be construed as personal attacks." --Judas278 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:A Man In Black reported by User:Untick (Result: BLP exemption)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [63]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [68]

User:A Man In Black continues his edit war to tag article for lack of notability and to prevent improvement of the article. Several other editors are defending the article, but each time User:A Man In Black reverts back to his version with notability tag. Untick (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

An alternate take on this is that Dekkappai is reverting to his preferred version that uses pornography catalogs as sources for a biography of a living person, something I've broken down in detail for him multiple times to little avail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you explicitly claiming a BLP exemption for your reverts? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. A possible real name is tied to an incest porn stage name through very shady sources, biographical info is sourced to what boils down to the back of a box, and it's alleged that a TBS series ripped off one of their songs. The potential for harm here isn't too likely (different language), but this is a biography by way of detective work to too much of a degree for me to be comfortable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm accepting AMIB's BLP claim, but advising him to read [69] (yes, I know) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can do. I've been dancing around it because it's kind of a distraction from the main point, which is plain old bad sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's absolutely ludicrous to paint this as a BLP concern. Japanese privacy law is very strict, and there's no way in hell a major commercial site is going to "out" the real name of a pornographic actor. This is simply a case of an actress who has used two stage names during different periods of her career. These two names are documented in her profile at a major commercial site. More importantly, the alternate name is just one small part of the article which Man in Black repeatedly blanks. Man in Black is simply opposed to any use of a commercial site for the sourcing of a commercially-released item, and information on a commercial career. And he is opposed to the use of a column by a published authority in the field for sourcing, etc. Fine. Did he tag it for sourcing concerns, and run it through AfD when appropriate? No. He has engaged in edit-warring, blanking of content and hiding of sources for nearly a month, during which time the article has undergone two AfDs. The ironic thing is that if the first AfD had been allowed to proceed normally-- for editors to find what sourcing they could, add it to the article, and for the community to look at the evidence and judge Keep or Delete-- the article would probably be gone by now. Instead, Man in Black and one (sometimes another) editor belligerently blanked anything added to the article. It is appalling that any editor has such little faith in standard Wikipedia process that he has to game the system through bullying. I will repeat, had the first AfD had been allowed to proceed normally, without bullying, without blanking, without edit-warring, the article would probably be gone by now. This is not about sourcing or BLP concerns, this is about edit-warring, content-blanking during AfD, gaming the system, and other sorts of belligerence. Dekkappai (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He broke the rules, reverting more than three times in a single day, and must be blocked as punishment. Most editors don't have a problem with the source of the information, nor doubt that it is valid. Dream Focus 00:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
BLP trumps everything regarding notability here. You should know that, DF. No blocks here - AMIB was absolutely correct - even if he's ultimately wrong, he was right to flag a possible problem. Black Kite 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

JuliaDzigora reported by Tedder (Result: editor admits that both are at fault, no point blocking both, please work out on talkpage, note that any further edit-warring will be hit with a long block)[edit]

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

  1. 03:50, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "")
  2. 04:01, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 282696893 by Tedder (talk)")
  3. 04:07, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 282697780 by Tedder (talk)")
  4. 04:11, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "There is no need for citations for the founding year or the founder of the company. This is public knowledge and is not present on other company sites")
  5. 04:20, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "You are vandalizing this company's site and have been doing so for some time. These mythical requirements you demand do not exist for any other company, please check out AGV, Dainese, and Alpinestars")
  6. 16:12, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "Removed unnecessary citations for information which is public knowledge and not required or posted on similar company sites. No citations are required.")

Note I am (or may be) at fault for violating 3RR too. I thought it protected me against maintenance tag removal until I reviewed the 3RR policy. That's why I said, in my warning to the user, that I may be liable too. In other words, I'm acknowledging that the blame cannon should be pointed at myself. tedder (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  • No action per the title. Black Kite 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER reported by Onyxig (Result: No Vio)[edit]

  • Previous version TO BE reverted to: [70]


User PRODUCER claims that a sentence does not belong to certain section reffering to WP:Lead, and yet he fails to place it to the appropriate section, and instead keeps removing it. I have had numerous 3RR issues with him, and his POV biased view of that article. Sick and tired of this. He never added anything constructive to the article but is always watching over it, removing things he doesn't like. I recall arguing with him regarding this sentence months ago.

Thank you.

Onyxig (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 01:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cs32en reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24h)[edit]

\

Complex reverts, all adding at least common text which was in the

In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and 8 other authors, published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[1] The paper suggested that super-thermite chips were discovered in the dust ....




Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Black Kite 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User: 81.77.203.85 reported by SISPCM (Result: 31h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [71]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [78]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours - no direct vio, but clearly disruptive. Black Kite 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Meanwhile, he's probably back!!! Now with this ip. Also good to mention: he probably fromerly edit with this ip

Regards! --Olahus (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ernest the Sheep reported by Matty (Result: Watching )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: link



  • Diff of 3RR warning: link
  •  Administrator note: At this time I am not going to take any action as Ernest the Sheep (talk · contribs) has not reverted since your most recent warning. If he continues to edit war, please notify me on my talk page, though I will also be trying to keep an eye on the article myself. Tiptoety talk 19:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lpi-english reported by Kuyabribri (Result: 31 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [79]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [84]

I left messages on Talk:Language Proficiency Index ([85]) and User_talk:Lpi-english ([86]) in an attempt to avert edit war but got no response. Username is also likely a UAA violation, as it implies connection with the organization that administers the test. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

CardinalDan reported by 129.240.0.83 (talk) (Result: CardinalDan warned, apparent IP socking being watched, article semi-protected)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [87]



Excessive and disruptive revert-warring (in order to push the POV that the wife of the Danish PM is the country's "first lady"), showing no willingness to discuss his edits (despite calls to do so), constitutes plain vandalism. His other edits also indicates he is a disruptive revert-warrior. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may interrupt, all the revisions I did to that particular article were done because an IP user ignored consensus and kept reverting the article back to his/her view. I did give the individual proper warning, but he/she kept reverting. In any case, the other editors of the article also had reverted the IP user in question. In addition, the IP made a false report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism against me. All I had done was revert the article in question back to what was considered to be the consensus. If you look at my past edits, I have not "edit warred", as the IP has alleged. I feel that the IP user may be the same individual who had vandalized the article earlier CardinalDan (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
These statements by User:CardinalDan are untrue. He took part in an aggressive revert war, without bothering to discuss his edits (unlike his opponent), giving no explanation for his excessive reverts, to restore his own POV (note that the false notion that she is "first lady" has now been removed from the other articles on her, in Danish and Norwegian, and has also been extensively discussed and proven wrong at the recent AFD entry, also note that the articles on Sarah Brown (spouse) or Cherie Blair are not inaccurately claiming they are "first ladies of the UK", so the solution with wife of NN, the Prime Minister of [country] should be considered the established/consensus solution with respect to these countries). Also, he made a false, bad faith report against an opponent in a content dispute at AIV. He continued the edit war after being warned of the 3RR. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering that the user in question was blocked for 12 hours, I don't think the report was made "in bad faith". And I just reverted the page in question back to what was consensus, not what one person's POV was. CardinalDan (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Untrue. It was not a consensus version, it was your POV (which was already proven to be inaccurate) and you even refused to discuss your edits, just behaving extremely disruptive. User:CardinalDan also needs to be blocked for excessive revert-warring. It takes two to tango, and 9 reverts with no discussion, even after being warned multiple times, is unacceptable. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember, reversion of vandalism is not considered edit-warring. CardinalDan (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If anyone was vandalizing, it was you. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note that User:CardinalDan is now trying to recruit acquainted admins (and fellow POV pushers/edit warriors) to support him or even "resolve" this case[88][89]. Stay alert. As his opponent was blocked for 12 hours, so should he. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • comment - As it was brought up as part of the above discussion - it appears that both 85.164.196.159 (talk · contribs) and CardinalDan (talk · contribs) were reported to WP:AIV (see here and here). However, while the reviewing admin blocked the anon (see here), the determination of the admin re: CardinalDan was that his edits were not vandalism (see here). Also, it appears that technically no 3RR warning was ever posted to User talk:CardinalDan - the warning diffs above are to a warning of claimed vandalism and to a comment field in the disputed article. Of course, this doesn't provide a pass, but should be taken into note by the reviewing admin. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I find it unlikely that an experienced user is not aware of the 3RR, also, he was made aware of it through the comment field. As he was reverting the article, one has to assume he was reading the comments of the edits he was reverting. In any case, 9 reverts with no discussion constitutes disruptive revert warring and was clearly not a mistake, like he forgot how many times he had reverted. He has to be treated in the same way as his opponent. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Am I missing something here, or is an anon IP editor purposefully and admittedly edit warring to draw an experienced editor into 3RR violations? Regardless of the ruling on CardinalDan, the page should be semi-protected to force the IP to stop edit warring and use the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
        • The edit war was not started by the IP, CardinalDan is the one purposely starting an edit war and the one behaving disrupting. Also, CardinalDan is the one who refuses to discuss his edits (which the IP has done long before the edit war, including at, but not restricted to, the ongoing ADF entry), CardinalDan's only "contributions" to the article have been unprovoked revert warring. CardinalDan is the one who needs to be forced to use the talk page or otherwise topic banned. User:Dayewalker, let me remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. 129.240.0.83 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Please show me the personal attack. It doesn't matter who starts an edit war, as you point out above it takes two to tango. I stand by my interpretation of the events, and again request semiprotection of the page once the matter has been settled. Dayewalker (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would observe that 85.164.196.159, registered to Telenor, was blocked at 20:39. 129.240.0.83 appeared, registered to the University of Oslo at 21.10 to complain here. This appears to be a continuation of an edit war by other means. CardinalDan should have dropped the reverts and reported it here. I'll have a word with him about that and semi-protect the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit reported by Nableezy (Result: No action per discussion below.)[edit]




  • Diff of 3RR warning: [96]

Nableezy (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I respect Nableezy opinion and really sorry to be in this page. I discuss my contributions on the talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If he says he will stop reverting until there is an actual agreement on the talk page, instead of just posting to the talk and continuing to revert, then close this out please. The user is very civil and behaves well except for the reverting. The images one is an issue because of the different reasons used, the last one is 'leave the grandma alone' after the issues in his first 2 reverts were resolved. But if he says he will stop reverting without any agreement then please close this out. Nableezy (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I will not change the article for at least 24 hours. The changes of "grandma" image were discussed here. I did not take part and it was wrong. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note – No action per the above discussion; please re-open if problem arises again. Black Kite 12:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

1111tomica reported by Yannismarou (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [97]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [102]

Let's just note that the aforementioned user not only edit-wars, but he also removes the AfD template. If you check his contributions log, you'll see that he is engaging in a nationalistic edit-warring in a series of articles. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Black Kite 12:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Martintg (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [103]
  1. 07:47, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "Er, no, it's for Ukraine in whatever form it was in.")
  2. 11:25, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "rv blind revert; these were all elections that happened in Ukraine; the flag or status of the country at the time are irrelevant")
  3. 18:59, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "They still happened, regardless of how flawed they were")
  4. 23:39, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "Firstly, people need to stop blind reverting because they are putting back an error into the template, and secondly, not having articles yet is not a reason to not include them")


  • Previous version reverted to: [104]
  1. 07:46, 9 April 2009 (edit summary: "Er, no, it's for Russia in whatever form it was in.")