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 20:13, 4 June 2008 editScarian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers28,509 edits →User:Andyvphil reported by 76.168.6.152 (talk) (Result: No vio ): Rep.← Previous edit Revision as of 20:17, 4 June 2008 edit undoScarian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers28,509 edits →User:Redman19 reported by User:Icykip2005 (Result: Article protected): Rep.Next edit →
Line 567: Line 567:
:::Good work, Ed. ]] 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::Good work, Ed. ]] 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
:::: OK this is my last comment here. I still don't understand how did the user with 3rr violation ''twice'' get away with no punishment. This certainly will make the user think he was right about 3rr vioaltions and will encourage him for new edit wars. --] (]) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::: OK this is my last comment here. I still don't understand how did the user with 3rr violation ''twice'' get away with no punishment. This certainly will make the user think he was right about 3rr vioaltions and will encourage him for new edit wars. --] (]) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) If he does edit war again, then report him here again. Ed made the right decision, in my opinion. ]] 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


==] reported by ] (]) (Result: No vio )== ==] reported by ] (]) (Result: No vio )==

Revision as of 20:17, 4 June 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,
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)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    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:Arzel reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: No violation)


    1. Revision as of 10:13, 29 May 2008
    2. Revision as of 16:13, 30 May 2008
    3. Revision as of 19:57, 30 May 2008
    4. Revision as of 10:56, 31 May 2008
    5. Revision as of 15:11, 31 May 2008


    No violation Arzel's removals are exempt under WP:BLP. He was taking out inadequately-referenced negative material from a biographical article. Since the people who keep putting back this material are gradually improving the sourcing, he may not be able to get away with this indefinitely. Neither Blaxthos nor Arzel has so far made any use of the Talk page of the article. (It should be noted that the NY Times reference offered for the critical material doesn't mention Gretchen Carlson, so it's not an ideal reference for criticism of Gretchen. It is not clear that blogs are a suitable reference here either). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Response. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just a note that Blaxthos has an ongoing dispute with me personally over other articles. He has never once commented on that talk page, and as near as I can tell never made an edit. It would appear that he "followed" me to that page and is reviewing my edits, showing a huge lack of good faith. Additionally, I can't understand why he would even be in favor of such vague references to controversies within a BLP. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the anoyn added the same material multiple times without reliables sources, any sources, or sources even relating to Carlson multiple times and I am the one that gets reported? Not cool at all. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Including liberal criticism added context to the article. From reading the entire article there was no reference for the reader to be aware that she is considered a controversial figure in journalism and on television. Additionally, Keith Olbermann ("Claims of ideological bias") Bill O'Reilly ("Controversy and criticism") and Brit Hume all have similar controversy sections so it seemed obvious that one controversy section should be included for Carlson. Regardless, Arzel chose not to use the discussion section and seemed ideologically bent on keeping any criticism out. Notably, he did not dispute any of the citations as EdJohnston has appropriately done. Surely the admin notices Arzel has been removing criticism of mainly conservative figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.230.48.50 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Gulmammad reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco (Result: Discretionary sanction notice)



    Diff of clarification of the sensitivity of these types of articles and advice against edit waring

    What I really find frustrating is the fact that Gulmammad keeps reverting everything that I add to the article and keeps trying to push POV. He adds very little to the talk page other than say that it should be added to the article because he knows it is true. Note that I have only made one revert of a revert he made on one of my edits because he didn't explain the revert in talk. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    I request from administrators to investigate who did more reverts without sufficient explanation. This is the third time user Pocopocopocopoco mentions my name here (I'd say calumniate me). He/she keeps reverting my edits without sufficient explanation and therefore pushing me into edit warring. First time he/she reported me with many incorrect informations and caused temporarily removal of my right of using the rollback tool. However, after I defended my actions, my rights returned back. The second time all report was incorrect and declined by administrators. Now this is the third time. I am looking for your serious concern related to this incidents. Thank you. Gülməmməd

    This area of editing is covered by an arbitration case which provides for discretionary sanctions. Both editors have been notified that further edit warring will result in application of sanctions. Seraphimblade 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:Gregbard reported by User:Ncmvocalist (Result: 48 hours)


    • Stated here (16:09) that it was his first and actual intentional policy violation as a form of protest - it was therefore in WP:POINT.
    • He needs to learn he cannot remove or alter other people's comments under any circumstances, and that he should not edit-war to try to prove a point or get the type of attention he wants. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Duration increased since it's also violating WP:TALK, which does not allow removal of others' comments. The 3RR warning was not timely, but on his own Talk page Greg makes clear that he understands 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Gulmammad reported by User:Pocopocopocopoco second report unrelated to the first (Result: Discretionary sanction notice + 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    31 May 2008 05:37, 1 June 2008



    • Diff of 3RR warning: He has responded to the 3RR report above hence he is familar with the rules. Please also see the guidance I tried to offer in the provided in the previous report

    I recommend that the two 3RRs be served consecutively. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    This area of editing is covered by an arbitration case which provides for discretionary sanctions. Both editors have been notified that further edit warring will result in application of sanctions. Seraphimblade 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    This is highly inappropriate. I have only made one edit to this article. Gulmammad was edit waring with other users and he breached 3RR. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked Gulmammad 24 hours. (Poco did not go over one revert in 24 hours on this article). Since Seraphimblade did not object, and this is a conventional 3RR violation as well as an Arbcom issue, I've issued the normal block. I did not include the Sheylanli case (reported above) in my analysis. In my study I was influenced by the strongly POV nature of the material G. was pushing to include in this article: However, the brutal tactics employed by Armenians resulted in thousands of innocent Azeri being massacred. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Personally, I would say don't block, because I told him in my summaries to continue trying to make the edit, if he could neutralize it, so I figure he would be under my 'protection' in case of a 3RR. However, seeing that he's also editwarred on another article today, I won't unblock. But I just want to make it clear that he 'violated 3RR' at my request, I did not consider it an edit war, we were merely using the article to try to work something out instead of taking it to the talk page, which I've now done. --Golbez (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Asher196 reported by — MrDolomite • Talk (Result:warning)

    Detroit Red Wings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asher196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 12:44, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 215487855 by 69.246.26.161 (talk)")
    2. 20:35, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216184584 by Salparadise44 (talk)")
    3. 22:34, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "I don't agree")
    4. 03:16, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Look at the talk page, idiot. Long discussion on this topic.")
    5. 03:29, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Team Information */")
    6. 03:47, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Anaheim eh?")
    7. 13:49, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216399762 by 66.212.150.82 (talk)")
    8. 14:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "remove vandalism")
    9. 15:18, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216412550 by Salparadise44 (talk)")
    10. 15:18, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "just continuing my edit war.....")
    11. 15:24, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "relenting on" jersey"....")
    12. 19:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "I'm not relenting that much")

    — — MrDolomite • Talk 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Salparadise44 reported by — MrDolomite • Talk (Result:24 hours)

    Detroit Red Wings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Salparadise44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 13:41, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: ""Uniforms" is a fair compromise.")
    2. 21:32, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "As pointed out before "Uniforms" is a more than fair compromise.")
    3. 23:49, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "You don't agree this is a fair compromise? (you may offer a more encompassing solution) Or is it you don't agree that "sweater" is the traditional term in hockey? (if so you need to educate yourself).")
    4. 14:08, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "This barely merits discussion. The point with Wiki is to inform. "Sweater" is the traditional term used for the uniform in the sport of hockey. Somehow this is a difficult concept for some. So be it.")
    5. 15:06, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Remove vandalism")
    6. 15:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "")
    7. 17:43, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Uniforms */")

    — — MrDolomite • Talk 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Both Salparadise and Asher are pretty clearly edit warring on this issue (not all diffs listed here are actual reverts, but the history is pretty clear). Normally, I'd be blocking both; however, I see no sign that either has been warned. So I'm going to start with a warning and see if that stops the situation (the attitude taken by both editors leaves me skeptical, but I'll at at least try the more pleasant way). Come on back if this edit war continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kuratowski's Ghost reported by User:70.19.197.168 (Result: Stale)



    The malicious user didn't make these deletions in a short period, but should be blocked, as is the discretion of the Administrator in this type of case. The user's Talk page has numerous warnings spread out over wide amounts of time, on many articles.

    Hasn't reverted since 1 am this morning, ergo, stale. Scarian 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    There were nowhere near four reverts by Kuratowski's Ghost in 24 hours. The submitter of this complaint, and some of his supporters, persist in adding an unsourced passage to the Immanuel article. If your claim is correct, you should be able to find sources. It seems probable that Mateek (talk · contribs), 70.22.168.24 (talk · contribs), 70.19.192.13 (talk · contribs), and 70.19.197.168 (talk · contribs) are all the same editor. Otherwise the exact coincidence of viewpoints between Mateek and these three single-purpose accounts would be curious. Sockpuppetry on admin noticeboards is not likely to be a successful strategy. (Mateek is inviting a block, in my opinion). If the abuse continues, semi-protection of the article should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just because the Misplaced Pages cookie expires when I'm filing here at the 3RR Noticeboard, or I forget to sign innocently doesn't make me intentionally deceptive in any way, which accounts for the IP addresses. My DSL provider (Verizon) changes them at their will, and I don't have any connection to them. The Noticeboard description says deletions older than 24 hours can still be considered for a block. I don't have the time to ask to become an Admin here, but I doubt you are authorized. I could've sworn instead of User: it should have said Admin:. Either way, you and Scarian fail in your duties miserably. Mateek (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    It does not take rocket science to be sure you are logged in to Misplaced Pages under your own name when you file a 3RR report. It might have been helpful if you had acknowledged that you had made IP edits on Immanuel somewhere in the text of your report. If you think these details don't matter, take a look at WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    Nor is it rocket science to know a worn out Misplaced Pages cookie would sign me out right in the middle, accounting for the IP. Mateek (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    There is no such thing as failure, Mateek, when you make a change that can lead to a success. If you want something done it's best not to insult the two most regular admins who oversee the board. :-) Scarian 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kaiwhakahaere reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 24 and 48 hour blocks )

    Part of a general pattern of incivility towards me by this user, as well as a debate over the standard of referencing in this article. The user is consciously ignoring the numerous times I have pointed them towards the WP:VUE policy. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    I have blocked both the reported user and the reportee for 24 and 48 hours respectively. Scarian 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Collectonian reported by User:Abtract (Result: no action)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 00.13 2 June
    • 2nd revert: 00.56 2 June
    • 3rd revert: 01.00 2 June
    • 4th revert: 1.05 2 June
    • No warning necessary as this is a very experienced user who knows better but has let a silly error during a self-admitted wikibonk phase turn into a vendetta. I tried a very reasonable softly, softly approach but sadly this was the response.

    User:Ave Caesar reported by User:71.233.150.26 (Result: A different IP was blocked 48 hours )


    This user has shown an obvious bias against the Harvard Extension School. This user is not only edit warring on the Harvard Extension School page, but if you go through the users contribs you will see that he has a history of edit warring. Also, you can see in the users Talk page that he has had dozens of users say something about this, but he just deletes the comments immediatly, threatens to have them blocked, then writes negative things on their talk pages. He is essentially trying to bully his edits into wikipedia. I feel that he should recieve a block, since he has not responded to any warnings to stop edit warring. --71.233.150.26 (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked 64.91.165.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 48 hours for violating 3RR on Harvard Extension School and for deleting others' comments from the article's Talk page. The submitter of this 3RR complaint, 71.233.150.26 (talk · contribs), is cautioned for adding promotional language to Harvard Extension School which violates WP:NPOV. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I understand that the language that I put in the Harvard Extension School page could be considered "promotional", even though I did not intend it to be, and that is why I did not put it back in. But would you agree that Ave Caeser is going against consensus by continuing to revert peoples edits? --71.233.150.26 (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    It seems to me that Ave Caesar was trying to ensure neutral point of view. He did not go over the 3RR limit himself. The 64.91 editor's deletions of well-sourced material bordered on vandalism. If you think the current article is not sufficiently positive about the school, I urge you to take your concerns to the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well looks like this took care of itself while I was offline. Let me know if you need me to comment. Thanks for looking into this closely, Ed.--Ave Caesar (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kossack4Truth reported by 71.130.194.163 (talk) (Result: 48 hour block )

    1. 14:01, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "There is no consensus for Scjessey's version. Andyvphil, Justmeherenow, Fovean Author and I have all spoken out against it on the article Talk page. If you want to remove this, show consensus.")
    2. 21:49, 24 May 2008 (edit summary: "There is no demonstration of a consensus on the Talk page for any other version.")
    3. 21:59, 24 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214703408 by Bobblehead. That evidence is insufficient.")
    4. 14:44, 25 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214839051 by Johnpseudo (talk)")
    5. 13:26, 30 May 2008 (edit summary: "This is the consensus version, supported by seven editors. See Talk page.")
    6. 13:35, 30 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 215961961 by Scjessey This is the consensus version, supported by seven editors. See Talk page.")
    7. 13:48, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */")
    8. 13:49, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
    9. 13:51, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
    10. 13:52, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
    11. 13:54, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */")
    12. 13:55, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
    13. 14:57, 31 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Ayers, Rezko, Wright and later primaries */")
    14. 12:02, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Correcting typos, clarifying name of church")
    15. 12:07, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Correcting more typos")
    16. 17:13, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216424952 by Modocc This is supported by consensus. Please see Talk page.")
    17. 17:59, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 216441515 by Modocc (talk)")
    18. 18:20, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */")
    19. 20:19, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Later primaries */")
    20. 20:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Better sentence structure, active voice rather than passive voice is always preferred")
    21. 23:17, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Yeah, you're right. There's no consensus for burying this all the way down there. It belongs in the "Presidential campaign section."")
    22. 03:22, 2 June 2008 (edit summary: "Jimmy Wales said: "It isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article." See WP:CRIT")

    User:Kossack4Truth's entire edit history consists of introducing POV and non-relevant material into Barack Obama (and writing large treatises on talk pages about "how readers must know the 'dark underside' of Obama"). This material always consists of large paragraphs expounding on the evils of Obama's "associates"; mostly, these edits are exact reinsertions of the same material removed by consensus; occasionally it is a slight rewording of the same WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE violations. S/he has been blocked for the same exact action before, but has again gone over 3RR today. 71.130.194.163 (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    I see a lot of edits listed, but not reverts. You need four, in 24 hours, to break 3RR. Fixing typos doesn't count. Andyvphil (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    Kossack is edit warring. He reverted both my attempts to remove his massive POV push midday yesterday. This morning, he just reintroduced the massive POV push again and reverted by another editor, and then put it back

    BHO bio Dissident "Kossack" edit wars but keeps from actually reverting over thrice (exactly as BHO bio Apologist "Lulu" did, during 24 hours yesterday, as well). Since the variuos BHO bio contributors including these two are busily at work on the talkpage as we speak, toward a compromise, please refrain, Mister--M/s Honorable Admin., from squinting at innocuous edits to push either editor (well, that is, should somebody file as well against Lulu) over the top. — Justmeherenow (   ) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    I have blocked Kossack for 48 hours. Scarian 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Blnguyen reported by User:68.83.179.37 (Result: Reporter blocked 31 hours)

    Dear Misplaced Pages Administrators, I (user name Anup Ramakrishnan) am making this post from outside of my account in Wiki. In a certain page here, titled Viv Richards, a player of the game of cricket, there is a lot of trouble being created by some extremely biased and cheap fans of other cricketers who do not want to see facts about others that their own favorites cannot boast of.

    This has led to my having to revert their edits more than twice, and one of the miscreants on that page is getting his friends to revert my edits so that he himself would not violate the rules on this site. Please warn the user Blnguyen not to come on that site and remove whatever goes against his own views and opinions on the subject, even if they are fact. He is guilty of false citations and lies on other pages which I am not even detailing here. Hope you understand and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.179.37 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    Reformatted the above report (originally submitted in the wrong section). EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    This report is completely malicious. The above user, who has been editing under an account as well, continues to add POV uncited statements to both Sachin Tendulkar and Viv Richards (e.g. "Viv is the King of Everything") type statements, and he is now in danger of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. He has also been very uncivil on the Tendulkar talk page. He will need some watching when his block expires. SGGH 09:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Jkp212 reported by User:John celona (Result: 24 hour block)

    In the midst of a mediation, this user has 4 times, within 24 hours, reverted the page to delete the word "prison" from the article. The user has previously ] been issued a 3RR warning. Here are the 4 edits which constitute the violation: 1. ] 2. ] 3. ] 4. ] John celona (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    Result I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Scarian 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Arcayne reported by User:Kurdo777 (Result: No violation)

    • It's clear from Arcayne's block log that he has already been blocked for edit-waring and 3RR on eight occasions!!!, his last block was for the duration of 79 hours only 4 weeks ago.--Kurdo777 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    No violation Arcayne's edits appear to be exempt under WP:BLP. Your claim that Googoosh's parents lived in Iranian Azerbaijan rather than Azerbaijan has no reliable source. In fact, Googoosh's own web site says she was born to Azerbaijani immigrant parents from the former Soviet Union. (i.e. not from Iran). This implies that your claim is wrong. Find reliable sources for the statement you are trying to make, and then we will start enforcing 3RR on any further reverts beyond that point. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    And, just to point out that Kurdo has been repeatedly asked (and eventually warned) by many other editors to utilize the discussion page to discuss his edits instead of edit-warring. I should have pointed out in article discussion that my reverts regarding the (regionally) polarizing ethnicity issue was based upon BLP; that's my bad. If a reliable, verifiable source is added, I have no intention of fighting it. I don't care one way or the other; it just needs a citation. - Arcayne () 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    A few points about this report. 1) User:EdJohnston has a history with Arcayne, he was canvassed for help by Arcayne in another dispute I had with Arcayne only a few days ago. 2) The Iranian Azerbaijan theory is supported by several sources. 3) All of Arcayne's reverts are in violation of WP:BLP by claiming that GooGosh is currently married to Kimiaei, when there is no evidence that the two are still together. Taking into account 1, 2, 3, could another admin please re-review this report? --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No violation Concur with EdJohnston. Arcayne's edits are exempt from the 3-revert-rule; the edits of those re-adding the information are not. The article, however, is a mess of fact tags and needs some aggressive pruning. CIreland (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    comment - Again, it would bear to point out the characterization of 'canvassing' is pretty inaccurate. I asked for a neutral set of eyes in the Anti-Iranian sentiment. It is also insightful to point out that Kurdo was counseled and warned not to editwar there as well (a behavior which had occurred on two prior occasions and resulted most recently in the article being dispute-locked).
    Also, there is a citation noting the state of marriage, which is backed up by the article subject's own website. There is no citation suggesting that they are divorced or estranged from one another. Had Kurdo responded to the repeated requests for discussion regarding these matters, this would have been pointed out earlier, and might have made his confusion here somewhat unnecessary. - Arcayne () 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Abtract reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: 48 hour block )


    User has a clear history of relentless incivility, harassing/inciting other editors, gaming the system, sparking edit wars, etc. (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abtract‎). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have blocked the user for 48 hours. Scarian 22:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for looking into this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:DHeyward reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    User knows the rules and was warned that he was breaking 3RR here: Other editor attempted to discuss with him the conflict but user simply reverted the message.

    There are many other reverts going back over the past couple days. There are only 4 reverts within the last 24 hours, violating the 3RR which is an electronic fence not to be crossed, besides his edit warring in general, and I note lack of the use of the talk page to discuss the content dispute.

    Conflict is about adding the information about the article's POV on the abortion issue, and his wanting to take a capital case.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


    These are BLP violations and oversighted reverts in the list (notice back to back edits by me with no differences, as well as on my talk page). Please check with User:Fred Bauder of oversight before taking action as he is the oversight person who I've worked with on those edits. Also please note that Giovanni33 was looking to bait me with a single unexplained revert. Not cool and I even told him on his talk page that these were oversighted edits. Please ask to stop wikistalking me and supporting those that harass me. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    There were a couple of edits which were inappropriate (a stale dispute revisited). What remains visible now (pro-life) and (capital case) is unobjectionable. Fred Talk 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I see no BLP concerns here. DHeyward is not assuming good faith either with his unfounded accusation that I was trying to "bait him." That is absurd just like his other accusations here. I even left a message on the talk page asking him to discuss his concern instead of just edit-warring. I also left one on his talk page. If there was some BLP issue then the offending editor would have been warned, or blocked. Instead we just have DHeyward edit-warring on his own, over the course of several days.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Of course you don't see it. It's been oversighted. A user would have been blocked but this is a low-level of activity IP editor so we just deal with it using rollback and other edits. The IP editor is aka Kek15 and her edits were discussed over a month ago. --DHeyward (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think you are mixing up and confusing that with this issue. I see nothing related to the user Kek15 here, and nothing about BLP or privacy. The issue is public information that you are reverting, specifically his view on Abortion (relevant given the case), and his being rejected for a Capital Case, based on inexperience according to the judge. What is the privacy concern, here?Giovanni33 (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I see that you have not been involved in this article so that is why you do not know anything. Isnerting yourself was a bad idea since it was only to bait me.. --DHeyward (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    I've reverted myself pending other input but please address the wikistalking and baiting that User:Giovanni33 is engaged in. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    I am formerly Kek15 and my issue with this article and Dheyward had nothing to do with this content. I was attempting to add the term Christian Terrorirst and this is well documented on the article talk page. Dheyard is confusing 2 issues here. The content that he is attempting to remove now has been in the article for a long time without objection from him or anyone else. I (and others) are pleading with Dheyard to please use the article talk page to present his rationale for removing this content at this time. It is sourced, it is public information, and has been in the article for a long time. DHeyward is an experienced editor who does know the rules. He has violated the 3RR and I have left him 2 warnings on his talk page. He really does know better. Why does he refuse to discuss this? Why the edit war? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    "Terrorist" is hardly a term that should be tossed around lightly, and it's inexplicable that you think such a thing ever belongs in a NPOV article. Even the article on Osama bin Laden only mentions that word in the context of direct quotes and references (such as saying he's on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists list), rather than using it directly as a description of the person. Now, "stalking" and "harassing" are also terms that shouldn't be tossed around nearly as much as they are, and it's disappointing that DHeyward uses them in the context of an editing dispute. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    The term Christian terrorist was not being tossed around lightly and has nothing to do with this current edit war (that other issue was over a month ago). The term applied to one of Scarborough's clients, but sufficient sourcing was not found for it to appear in the article as opposed to the article on Eric Rudolph where the sourcing and consensus does provide for its inclusion. I agree that DHeyward is a more experienced editor than some of his comments here would indicate. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    If OBL is not a terrorist - who is? 72.92.4.157 (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Currently waiting on DHeyward to propose alternative wording that is to his satisfaction in order that article can be unprotected. See Joe Scarborough talk page. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected by User:Viridae. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Locke Cole reported by User:SQL (Result: Two users blocked.)

    Explanation, Locke Cole (talk · contribs), has a very long history of edit warring on WP:BOTS ( ) and WP:BAG ( ) , and, has been blocked multiple times for edit warring (in fact, just recently). At this point, it appears the system is being gamed, by running right up to 3RR, with his preferred version, even though multiple other users are reverting it to the version that describes the current practice. He is clearly aware of the Three Revert Rule, and, generally chooses to ignore it, it seems. Anyhow, it appears, he's back, trying to kick up the same old problems. SQL 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    " Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. — Werdna talk 06:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Clarification: Both Locke Cole and Betacommand. — Werdna talk 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    User:Betacommand2 remains unblocked. What's the procedure in cases of multiple accounts? Leithp 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    It remains unblocked until he uses it to circumvent the block. If he does circumvent the block, then it will be extended . But he wouldn't be stupid enough to do that. Scarian 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:UtherSRG reported by User:Mark t young (Result: Two editors 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • This is an edit war over what page Marsupial lion links to. The pages as is, current makes little sense, and is being discussed at: . At the moment there is no consensus as there is two editors on both side of the arguement.
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Both UtherSRG and Cazique. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Thsebajabum reported by User:Montco (Result: Already blocked 31 hours)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Including the four reverts since the warning was issued. Montco (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Already blocked 31 hours by Doczilla. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mosesconfuser reported by User:Appletrees (Result: 24 hours)

    The edit waring originally started by Mosesconfuser (talk · contribs) on May 31th over whether some part of history could be interpreted as a legend or regarded written history on multiple articles related to Korea, but there is no discussion on the controversial subject except this mockery.

    Regardless of the 3RR waring and my advice to participate in a discussion to the both party, unlike Kubie, Mosesconfuser ignored and reverted to his preferred version twice. Besides, meanwhile, he also added another previously reverted contents. Judging by his POV pushing and writing habits, I don't think Mosesconfuser is a newbie, so he needs a lesson from his violation. --Appletrees (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:I am a jedi reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hours )



    Result - I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Scarian 08:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Redman19 reported by User:Icykip2005 (Result: Article protected)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: (this is an old edit-war & 3rr warning to the same user. The user had been in edit wars on other articles. Hence, there isn't a new warning about Galatasaray article.)
    • here I explained my edition in details but the user keeps calling that vandalism.
    Page protected Both these editors seem well-intentioned, and they participate on Talk, though not always courteously. They are not the first sports fans to take all details extremely seriously. Protected two days. If the revert war starts up again after two days, blocks will be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    The two editors left extremely lengthy comments here, which I have moved to Talk:Galatasaray S.K.. Please continue the debate there. Since the alternative is to immediately block both editors, please show some patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good work, Ed. Scarian 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    OK this is my last comment here. I still don't understand how did the user with 3rr violation twice get away with no punishment. This certainly will make the user think he was right about 3rr vioaltions and will encourage him for new edit wars. --Icykip2005 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    (Undent) If he does edit war again, then report him here again. Ed made the right decision, in my opinion. Scarian 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Andyvphil reported by 76.168.6.152 (talk) (Result: No vio )

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andyvphil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 11:27, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ restore material")
    2. 11:34, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Better description than "fundraiser".")
    3. 11:48, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Controversies over Ayers, Rezko and Wright */ Part of what "radical activist" means.")
    4. 13:09, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "restoration; improve cite for TUCC resignation")
    5. 23:25, 1 June 2008 (edit summary: "Restore section, specify meaning of "several".")
    6. 14:32, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ bit more specificity")
    7. 15:54, 4 June 2008 (edit summary: "Equating bombing with radicalism is offensive

    to radicals, such as myself.")

    User:Andyvphil has resumed edit warring over exact same topic (slightly different wording) as blocked users (possible socks) User:Kossack4Truth and User:Fovean Author. A long discussion on article talk reached (rough) consensus on minimal encyclopedic language to use in mentioned "disreputable associates" of bio subject, in a WP:SUMMARY article. Andyvphil has resumed inserting identical long digresssions about these third persons; probably hoping to sneak them in during the recently accelerated editing by previously uninvolved editors (in unrelated article areas, the completed nomination race drew lots of editor interest).

    —76.168.6.152 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Only 2 reverts on the 4th of June that I can see. If you believe them to be socks then take it to WP:SSP or WP:RfCU. I've blocked those guys before so no doubt they'll be back again. No vio. Scarian 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think Andyvphil is a sock of K4T. Sorry if the wording was unclear. I meant K4T/FA as socks of each other. There's a request for check at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. You're right that Andyvphil has only reverted to the edit-warring stuff twice (so far) today. 76.168.6.152 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    No worries, Mr.IP. Thanks for being so vigilant. Scarian 20:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories: