Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Krkrkrs

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Krkrkrs




(I also request that a check of, although I think it unlikely in that particular case.)

During the last couple days, these user(s)/IP have been trying to remove "East Sea" from the lead paragraph of Sea of Japan, against consensus, and is now in 3RR-violative status if these are the same person. (See .) Please conduct a check so that a 3RR block can be carried out if these are the same person, and also that the block would be effective. --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 61.198.217.80 is my ip when I wasn't logged on and the other two accounts aren't mine. Also there is not such a consensus like Nlu alleges. "East Sea" is just one of many alternative names for the Sea of Japan, and that's not even the only name that the Koreans are using. (They are also suggesting "Korean Sea," "East Korean Sea," etc. as a replacement). "East Sea" is mentioned in the naming section and that's enough. There is no reason to include "East Sea" in the lead section unless you include all the other alternative names as well. For it doesn't matter if one alternative name is more widely used than others as far as it's not the formal international name (which "Sea of Japan" is). "East Sea" as an alternative name of the Sea of Japan isn't even the only sea that carries the name "East Sea" (see Talk:East Sea). Anyway we have been discussing this issue on the note page, and  there exists no consensus for including "East Sea" in the lead section. --Saintjust 11:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether "East Sea" should be in the lead paragraph of Sea of Japan was discussed at Talk:Sea of Japan, and the discussion at Talk:East Sea is not particularly relevant, as they deal with different articles. In any case, the request here is to deal with a potential 3RR violation.  --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then what's the point of mentioning "against consensus"? It surely seems to me to be implying that I am a violator of the Wikipedia guideline and so ought to be checked on for the other misconduct as well, namely the violation of 3rr. I haven't seen such a consensus being reached on the discussion page of the article. Nor have I seen you participating in the discussion. Yet you are engaged in the other side of the revert wars, and didn't request for check user of editors on your side. Anyway like I said earlier the other two account names listed above aren't mine so if you want to cu me go ahead. --Saintjust 22:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I still believe that it was against consensus (notwithstanding your interpretation of the discussion so far there). What I meant above is that even if it were, arguendo, not against consensus, it would still be a 3RR violation.  That an edit is not against consensus is not a defense for a 3RR violation.  --Nlu (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC) ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''