Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:13, 4 September 2008 editKing of Hearts (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators68,820 edits →115.130.2.169 reported by FisherQueen (Result: ): ab← Previous edit Revision as of 23:16, 4 September 2008 edit undoKing of Hearts (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators68,820 edits →User:Scjessey reported by User:CENSEI (Result: ): b 31hNext edit →
Line 571: Line 571:
::::] has already been blocked 48 hours by FisherQueen, for evasion of the previous block on 115.130. I think that semi-protection of this article should be considered, due to the high volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. (This is not exactly a normal BLP issue, but it does involve blanket criticism of entire groups in society based on poor sources). ] (]) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC) ::::] has already been blocked 48 hours by FisherQueen, for evasion of the previous block on 115.130. I think that semi-protection of this article should be considered, due to the high volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. (This is not exactly a normal BLP issue, but it does involve blanket criticism of entire groups in society based on poor sources). ] (]) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==


* Page: {{article|Barack Obama}} * Page: {{article|Barack Obama}}
Line 586: Line 586:


Article is under ], Scjessey has been cited before for edit warring on this topic. ] (]) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Article is under ], Scjessey has been cited before for edit warring on this topic. ] (]) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|b|31 hours}} (had been previously blocked in April) -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours) == == ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours) ==

Revision as of 23:16, 4 September 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

    24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Mcelite reported by All Hallow's Wraith (Result:Both blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • User:Mcelite has spent most of their time at Misplaced Pages adding "is of Native American descent" and the "Native American" categories to as many pages on African-Americans as they can seemingly find. I don't know whether the information is true or not, but it is never properly sourced. Sometimes Mcelite adds it without any sources at all (i.e. the article in question, Joanna Hayes - , stating in their reverts "find a source or remove (every cat.) that isn't supported", "biased", "be helpful and fin one then"), and sometimes citing IMDB biographies and trivia that were written by unknowns (and many of which were similarly amended to say "of African American and Native American" descent by the same IMDB user, freemca, who is almost certainly Mcelite themselves). When adding these IMDB references, Mcelite usually titles the reference "Amazon.com" (as if that would be a reliable biographical source) and states in her edit summaries things like "printed by Amazon. with credited writer", when of course, the reference is to the IMDB. Sometimes they cite one of seemingly millions of random celebrity websites that get their trivia from the IMDB or Misplaced Pages and never credit writers or sources, i.e. "Celebrity Index" here. Sometimes they give misleading edit summaries, like "it's been cleared" or "that's common knowledge" . User:98.206.111.54 (contributions) is almost certainly a sockpuppet, and indeed Mcelite has been blocked for sockpuppetry before, as well as for 3rr, a personal attack and "Repeatedly inserting uncited information that contradicts article" (block log). They've certainly been warned about adding reliable sources, i.e. . Anyway, Mcelite violated 3rr again on Joanna Hayes, continually reverted the "Native American" categories back into the article without any indication of a source. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: Mcelite has violated 3RR in my opinion, doing 4 reverts in a 24-hour period. However, in the past few days it's been only these two users editing the article. All Hallow's Wraith has done 3 reverts in 24 hours, 5 reverts in 48 hours. There is no discussion on the article talk page. I suggest putting arguments there to support your edits, referring to policies and guidelines such as for example general categorization guidelines points 7 and 8 in particular; Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people; Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (categories)#Categorization of people and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, etc. You may also find it useful to use dispute resolution such as third opinion. Please don't use this noticeboard page for discussion. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    Both editors Blocked, Mcelite for 31 hours seeing as he has a history of edit warring and All Hallow's Wraith for 24. Tiptoety 04:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

    Mcelite reporting All Hallow's Wraith

    All Hallow's Wraith is not being helpful. I've been trying hard to find reliable sources for numerous articles and it's been extremely hard. One source I did find was completely legit and useable. An expert clearly talking about people that clearly have Native American traits not African nor European. All Hallow's Wraith just removing it saying it's opinionated when this is an expert clearing things up. Also he will only remove Native American categories, and will not remove African American or other categories that are not sourced either. Then he has the nerve to say well the source doesn't support this and that when if it doesn't apply to native heritage than it shouldn't apply to African heritage either. I added the AFrican American categories and the Native American categories for LL Cool J. He removes only the Native American categories so I said why are u doing this and not removing the other categories since he obviously has a problem with them. He doesn't even try to help find sources stating people having other heritage. Aaliyah is very well known to have both African American and Native American heritage. However, it's been difficult to find that information from quote "a reliable source". Also i'm not socketpuppeter he's guessing.Mcelite (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    The reliable source Mcelite is talking about is a writer who says that "You can see" the "Native American features", which results in Mcelite's Misplaced Pages edit stating "is of both African American and Native American descent". Turning the speculation in that reference into fact was already discussed with Mcelite by another editor (), a comment Mcelite promptly removed from their talk page. This page (LL Cool J) is in fact another 3rr violation, 20:58, 29 August 2008, 07:29, 30 August 2008, 18:07, 30 August 2008, 18:22, 30 August 2008). Oh, and as for the sockpuppet, 98.206.111.54 they would appear to have the same penchant for adding IMDB references that were titled "Amazon.com" . All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    That person is an expert one of the main complaints on an article that is currently being worked on. The expert clearly states that he has features that are Native American clearly. You can't get those traits mixing African American and Caucasian together. It's so simple and All Hallow's is making this a big fight. He has added things were people have called someone African American and the person didn't call themselves AFrican American the interviewer did which isn't better than an expert that works on the subject consistently pointing out features that are Native American. Therefore if that source has to be removed than I say All Hallow mush remove information from a article which the person herself doesn't state she is African American but the interviewer does. That's like me interviewing James Earl Jones saying the African American actor when he is of African American, Native American, and Irish descent. Also IMDB is not independent they are owned by Amazon therefore they fall under Amazon's copyright.Mcelite (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Berby reported by User:Traditional unionist (Result: Page protected )




    Two different accounts with obvious socking going on. Sock report pending, but disruptive editing continuesTraditional unionist (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: Even if no sockpuppetry were involved, Berby has violated 3RR. (non-admin opinion.) Ovlem, Berby and MiddleEastlands are deleting the words "the Republic of" before "Ireland". The revert by MiddleEastlands was the first edit on that account. Four editors have been reverting in the other direction; Mooretwin may have done 4 reverts in 24 hours but perhaps this is excusable given the sockpuppetry; the others did only 1 or 2 reverts each. Ovlem has now been blocked by Jza84 for 48 hours for 3RR violation. I've added two reverts and other information in italics to the above report. Coppertwig (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Page protected for 15 days. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    JimBobUSA and IP 76.173.161.184 reported by Professor Marginalia (Result: 24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    User:JimBobUSA:

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    User:76.173.161.184

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warnings:  ;

    IP reverts over past 2 weeks by user:67.120.59.46 to same article follow pattern of user:76.173.161.184. I left earlier warning on 2nd IP involved in the slow speed edit war .

    Professor marginalia (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    Tmtoulouse reported by The7thdr (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I have left messages on the users talk page and comments on the articles talk page but the user insists on reverting wityhout discussion here The7thdr (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    I can see no set of reversions occurring within a 24 hour period. Kuru 22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    Onelifefreak2007 reported by TAnthony (Result:24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I am almost embarrassed to call attention to such an inconsequential "dispute" as this (disagreement over a date), but despite all advice and warnings this editor insist on constant reverts without edit summary or discussion, in several articles, over totally unimportant factoids. The bulk of his recent edits actually involve this article and List of One Life to Live cast members (also fraught with, in my opinion, bad-faith reverts). Nearly all of the activity in these articles lately has been back-and-forth edits like this. I do not even know who is "correct," and another editor is usually involved, but Onelifefreak2007 seems to be the one not acting in good faith. I'm not an expert with the rules, but I certainly can recognize inappropriate behavior, language and attitude. — TAnthony 23:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

    69.158.149.30 reported by Deor (Result:72 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Deor (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    This is regarding the simple BOLDING of America in the lead of the article of the same name (Americas), something which is prevalent in Misplaced Pages. Deor points me to the Manual of Style as a reason not to do it, but it doesn't support his position and then said user doesn't clarify, and reverts as well. BS. 69.158.149.30 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    68.40.196.41 reported by Road Wizard (Result:24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Road Wizard (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Collectonian reported by User:Abtract (Result: Protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 18:43, 1 September 2008
    • 2nd revert: 04:37, 2 September 2008
    • 3rd revert: 04:58, 2 September 2008
    • 4th revert: 06:52, 2 September 2008
    • Warning

    There is no requirement to warn this user who is highly experienced

    • Comment

    Collectonian has shown an excessive use of the revert "tool" without engaging in discussion on the talk page, only responding to a challenge on her own talk page. Edit summaries were somewhat dismissive. No attempt at compromise (for example she might have allowed one mention of "flopped" especially since she admits its validity here. Abtract (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    This person has a very well known history of stalking and harassing me. This report is just another attempt at doing so. He was told during multiple AN/I reports to stop this behavior, and has been blocked for it repeatedly. As expected, he lied about "leaving" Misplaced Pages, while continuing to find ways to be harassing. The fact that he even filed this report, when he has never had any dealings with this article, shows that he is continuing to stalk people. Also, this report is false. The second "Revert" is a vandalism revert and has nothing to do with the flipped/flopped issue. -- ] (] · ]) 07:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I see three clear reverts. I don't know the subject well enough to be sure if the second revert is in fact of vandalism or just of poorly written text. I'm not immediately inclined to block, but I am inclined to remind Collectonian that the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts a day and that it would have been better not to revert this many times. (Other admins: this isn't really a result, so feel free to come up with a more solid one without being bound to anything I've said.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    Its both, and unrelated to the other reverts. 3RR does not generally include different, unrelated reverts. If it did, many editors would be in a constant state of block because of the amount of daily vandalism on some articles. I know the bounds of 3RR very well, and also reminded the other editor of BRD. This is nothing but a report in this editors sick, lengthy harassment campaign. Check his blocked log. Eight blocks behind this mess so far, yet the admins just keep letting him do it. *sigh* -- ] (] · ]) 08:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    The 3RR policy page explicitly says that reverts don't have to be of the same material to count. Again, no comment on whether that revert was of vandalism or not. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    Page protected 4 days should do it. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    I note that the edit war died down earlier today. Any admin should feel free to unprotect without reference to me, and if the editors of this page can agree to stop reverting I will do it myself. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    We already did on my talk page while the project discusses this unexpected issue over the term through nice, fairly civil discourse User talk:Collectonian#flip or flop. The only reason this became an issue at all is because Abtract is, once again, harassing me and hoping to get me into blocked. It is something he has done multiple times before. -- ] (] · ]) 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Zxcvlkj reported by LedRush (talk) (Result:24 hours )

    2008 Summer Olympics medal table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zxcvlkj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 03:45, 1 September 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 03:03, 2 September 2008 (edit summary: "")
    3. 21:08, 2 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 235800021 by Phizzy (talk)")
    4. 21:13, 2 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 235894123 by Scorpion0422 (talk)")
    5. 23:09, 2 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 235895069 by Scorpion0422 (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —LedRush (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    24.93.236.98 reported by Jclemens (Result: 48 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Please see this user's user talk page for discussion of additional issues, such as deliberate factual errors and original research. User was previously blocked for 12h for this same behavior.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This user has not discussed a signle edit, nor has s/he responded to a single message on the IP talk page. Multiple other editors, like User:Zythe and User:Paul730 have also reverted this user's repeated edits against consensus as well. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Simon Bar Sinister reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User is tendentiously editing an article despite clear consensus on how the article (a child article to the main Walt Disney World Resort article) should be laid out. Further, no citation has been provided in any of the edits to back up his claims. User appears to have already been warned and was blocked while this was being prepared, so this may be a moot point.

    McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Blocked by another admin for 24 hours. Incidentally, though, you (the reporter) are actually at 4RR right now. I'm not going to do anything at this point, but you could well have both ended up blocked. Take it to dispute resolution next time, before you hit your 4th revert. MastCell  23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    See also a previous 3RR report about the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:82.20.235.102 reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours)




    This fella has been edit-warring for days now over this text, which is opposed by a consensus of other editors. He's turned down invitations to the talk page and now is just rapidly reverting. MastCell  23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours--Smashville 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


    User:Kober reported by User:cityvalyu (Result:No violation)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • Warning

    There is no requirement to warn this user who is highly experienced..anyway he reverted his own user page twice to erase the 3rr warnings (he erased the warning not once but twice: contempt at 3rr?}..even after that he reverted a (3+2+1) sixth time(see attention diverting tactic explained below)

    the user has used REVERT OPTION atleast four times within 24 HOUR time frame in the same article..please see proof of each of his 4 reverts within 24 hours

    Revert 1

    revert1:please compare similarities between and | this ..both his versions differ from intermediate edits which are better referenced, neutral, balanced and rearranged into appropriate sections(most of content retained but rearranged logically)..see to know better

    1. 04:56, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (83,882 bytes) (rv mass destruction of the intro. Guy, learn to use talk page!) (undo)
    1. (cur) (last) 04:22, 4 September 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (79,404 bytes) (ref added.. rearrange) (undo)

    Revert 2

    revert2 please note the bytes as an easy guide PROOF:

    1. 08:46, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (75,810 bytes) (such gross changes should be discussed on talk. Deal with it!) (undo)
    1. 08:45, 4 September 2008 117.193.37.23--(cityvalyu dynamic server number without registering) (Talk) (79,402 bytes) (restored clean up) (undo)
    1. 06:04, 4 September 2008 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) (75,810 bytes)

    Revert 3

    please note the bytes as easy guide:revert3 PROOF :

    1. 08:59, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (75,824 bytes) (please don't destroy the article) (undo)
    1. 08:55, 4 September 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (79,416 bytes) (Undid revision 236198029 by Kober (talk) you too can use talk to develop consensus on MASSIVELY reverting twice..see edit summaries) (undo)
    1. 08:50, 4 September 2008 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (75,824 bytes) (semi) (undo)

    Warning

    Warning deleted by user:Kober after 3rd revert with disdain repeatedly: proof:

    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • DIFF OF 3RR WARNING DELETION:

    Revert 4

    • 4th revert even after warning ; obvious motive: to feign good behaviour..

    please note the bytes as easy guide:revert4 PROOF :

    1. 09:57, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (75,856 bytes)
    1. 09:49, 4 September 2008 Raphaelhui (Talk | contribs) (75,978 bytes)
    1. 09:33, 4 September 2008 Treybien (Talk | contribs) m (75,856 bytes)


    • Comment

    the user does not read edit summaries before reverting to his favourable version..blatantly violating 3rr in this article alone..although i tried to revert his reverts, i didnt want to violate 3rr and hence stopped short of reverting thrice ..but once i realised that he is rampant reverter (see also his reverts in international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the same date of sept 4, 2008) i am forwarding him here for he deserves a big ban..may be he hates the edits because of user hatred..since all my edits were made with citations and step by step so that anyone can understand that article was cleaned up to a better wp:point and rectified wp:unbalanced wp:undue clauses..irrespective of the edit conflicts , he has violated and deserves punishment since he is an EXPERIENCED user.. i hope admin will take appropriate actionCityvalyu (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Huh! It seems to me Cityvalyu has attributed all edits done today to me. This is ridiculous. I did not violate 3RR. I twice reverted an apparent destruction of the article, one by an IP , and the other by Cityvalyu (sockpuppetry?). Even after that, I reverted myself. --Kober 10:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Since Kober has reverted himself, I do not see violations here. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    User didnt revert the first 3 edits..he intentionally made and reverted the fourth edit to score brownie points to divert attention from previous 3 reverts..see the time when he deleted the warning messages and compare with the diversionary fourth reversion..Cityvalyu (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Also, your report is very hard to follow, Cityvalyu. Please use the link "Click here to add a new report" at the top and bottom of this page which provides a convenient template. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    I HAVE rearranged..hope you are not saying this to act blind and be lenient with him..(i am not blaming you of racist slant as of now as i am assuming good faith)Cityvalyu (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    I'm still trying to wade through the report to determine exactly what's gone on, but in the meantime, Cityvalyu, (i) users can remove warnings from their talk page if they wish, as it's a prima facie indication that they've read them, (ii) to then repost the warning constitutes disruption, (iii) don't template the regulars, (iv) you're hardly an innocent party in the on-going edit war, and (v) "I am not blaming you of racist slant as of now as I am assuming good faith" doesn't bode very well should the result of this report go against your views. Gb 12:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    what all this hoopla!!! this guy has used revert option more than 4 times in this particular article alone within 24 hours(even without considering other reverts done in tha same time frame)..yet you guys want to find fault with me!!! i need to think a lot about wikipedia's application of moral standards...Cityvalyu (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    It's not particularly difficult to find fault with you, since you're clearing edit warring against consensus, and continue to do so. I don't think that there's been a breach of WP:3RR by Kober (talk · contribs), but am pretty certain that your edits constitute a breach, so consider yourself warned accordingly. Take it to the talk page - any more edit warring and blocks will almost certainly be on the cards. Gb 12:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Fipplet reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 hours)



    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:

    (Original report by RolandR 11:33 4 September 2008)

    Previous version reverted to: 13:38 3 September 2008


    This is about the capital city as displayed in the infobox. Fipplet's reverts are replacing "Jerusalem (claimed), Ramallah (de facto)" with just "Ramallah" and a briefer footnote. There is ongoing discussion on the talk page and Fipplet has some good points; however, please work things out via discussion, compromise and use of WP:NPOV and reliable sources, not with repeated reverting of the article. This article is under the Arbcom sanction on Palestine-Israel articles. Fipplet is the sole editor reverting to that version, opposing four established editors reverting in the other direction. I've added information to this report, replacing the list of "reverts" with essentially the same list in a different format. I left off the first revert in order to make the "previous version reverted to" more obviously similar to the reverts. I'm an involved editor on this page. Coppertwig (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    And I have just added today's seventh (or eighth, depending on how you count) revert. Someone please take actoion against this disruptive editor. RolandR (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    I am an uninvolved editor. I warned Fipplet about the ArbCom sanctions (logging my notification) and he was subsequently warned about the reverts (on user page and Talk). Though he's a newbie, I would recommend a block at this juncture. HG | Talk 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Although Fipplet's ideas about the status of Jerusalem should be carefully listened to on the article Talk page, he is clearly edit-warring to force his view into the article. He has reverted the same phrases back into the article over and over again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Pulsifer reported by Mike R (Result: No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: (This is the article after the first instance of Pulsifer adding this info, which I am not counting as a revert.
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Technically he added the info once, and then reverted 3 times, so there is no 4th revert yet, but at least one of those reverts happened after he was warned. And content similar to that he originally added had previously been removed by various editors. Mike R (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    No violation As you said yourself, there is no 4th revert. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Please reconsider per User talk:Mike R#Your report and User talk:Coppertwig#Re: Your_suggestion. Mike R (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Noted. The purpose of a 3RR block is to prevent an edit war from continuing. Since the page is protected, it is not possible for the edit war to continue. Blocking Pulsifer would serve no useful purpose. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    After the protection is lifted, if Pulsifer inserts the material on the Alaskan Independence Party yet again, without finding support to do so on Talk, I suggest that Mike R should file a new 3RR report at that time and mention this one as evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    115.130.2.169 reported by FisherQueen (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Technically I could do this block, but I'm not comfortable blocking him since I've been reverting him, so I'm submitting it here instead. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Already blocked by Exploding Boy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:115.130.2.169 (also editing as User:115.130.14.75) reported by User:Exploding Boy (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert
    • 6th revert
    • 7th revert
    • 8th revert
    • 9th revert


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This is a single-issue editor apparently using 2 IPs. He shows no signs of backing down. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    He's gone far beyond 9 reverts at this point. Despite repeated warnings. I'm going to block him even though I edit that page, and will post on WP:AN for review. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Note that he/she seems to have taken on a user ID - WesternPacific (talk · contribs) - and has continued the revert-war. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    WesternPacific has already been blocked 48 hours by FisherQueen, for evasion of the previous block on 115.130. I think that semi-protection of this article should be considered, due to the high volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. (This is not exactly a normal BLP issue, but it does involve blanket criticism of entire groups in society based on poor sources). EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Scjessey reported by User:CENSEI (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    Article is under probation, Scjessey has been cited before for edit warring on this topic. CENSEI (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours (had been previously blocked in April) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:74.210.87.84 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result:24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    This user is persistently making edits against the consensus established on the talk page and has broken the three-revert rule despite prior warnings. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Smashville 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    Bob Jones University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • User: 71.15.88.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This may look like a good faith edit to someone unfamiliar with the subject. But it's vandalism. John Foxe (talk) Categories: