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 18:57, 4 November 2008 editCumulus Clouds (talk | contribs)6,434 edits →User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:Orpheus (Result: )← Previous edit Revision as of 19:08, 4 November 2008 edit undoOnly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,384 edits →User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:Orpheus (Result: ): blockedNext edit →
Line 750: Line 750:
] (]) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


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


* Page: {{article|Geoff Simpson}} * Page: {{article|Geoff Simpson}}
Line 776: Line 776:
:*You have to notify first, then wait for another reversion. Anyway, this still falls under the BLP exemption for 3RR since you are attempting to smear a living person with no credible evidence (sources provided do not indicate guilt). This also falls under ] and ], both of which are BLP violations in this case. I invite an administrator to review my actions and advise. ] (]) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC) :*You have to notify first, then wait for another reversion. Anyway, this still falls under the BLP exemption for 3RR since you are attempting to smear a living person with no credible evidence (sources provided do not indicate guilt). This also falls under ] and ], both of which are BLP violations in this case. I invite an administrator to review my actions and advise. ] (]) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
:*Oh, and I declared my intention to continue reverting this article until 8 o'clock PM tonight, when we will be clear of any direct influence on the Washington State Legislative election. ] (]) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC) :*Oh, and I declared my intention to continue reverting this article until 8 o'clock PM tonight, when we will be clear of any direct influence on the Washington State Legislative election. ] (]) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
::*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:08, 4 November 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)
    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:
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son


    216.207.226.175 reported by E8 (Result:blocked for vandalism )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This is the second user in as many days to repost this information. Numerous request were made to both users to correct the information to make is suitable for Misplaced Pages; much of the addition is politically-charged and very biased. Neither user has responded to any of the requests.--E8 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

    The user was blocked for vandalism for 31 hours several days ago, Metros (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    125.238.246.105 reported by Ms. Sarita (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • User blanked their talk page of all warnings:

    I have reverted this user's edits multiple times, asking for a citation, which s/he refused to do. In his/her reverts, this user has also deleted the citation templates for the section.

    I was going to go the Dispute Resolution route, but this user chose to vandalize my talk page here, telling me to "get cancer".

    I realize that I violated the 3RR policy as well, so feel free to block me if you deem it necessary, for fairness.

    Please advise. Thank you so much. – Ms. Sarita 06:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

    I've also reported this IP to AIV, since what he's edit warring to add to the BLP is nonsense and appears to be a reference to the subject's portrayal on Family Guy. He's just here to be disruptive. Dayewalker (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed. There's nothing constructive about this user. – Ms. Sarita 08:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    Semi-protected. There has been a bunch of vandalism of this biographical article in the last two weeks from a variety of IPs. This IP was already blocked 3 hours at WP:AIV. Note that whenever negative unsourced material is added to a BLP, it is reasonable to ask for a block at WP:AIV, and they will give a quicker response than this noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

    Hobartimus reported by Bko79 (Result: no violation )

    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    This user has been warned by many editors to stop reverts

    • I never edit anyone's talk, I respectfully leave other's comments alone. Why can't others do the same?

    Hobartimus' contributions to Misplaced Pages consist of reverting edits and destroying intellectual property. Talk pages are for opinions and no one has the right to destroy valid opinions added by any user! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bko79 (talk • contribs)

    Decline. First of all, please follow the proper format in the future by providing links to the diffs of the edits (to highlight the changes they are making) rather than the resulting versions like you did. Second of all, I do not see him reverting anyone more than three (3) times in one twenty-four (24) hour period. Third of all, what he is reverting is, essentially, vandalism which is an exemption from the 3RR rule. Metros (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

    BBC Radio 2 by TheRetroGuy (result: not by me)

    Repeated reversions. User reprimanded for 3RR violations earlier in week.

    81.242.6.21 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

    I believe this is part of an ongoing wikistalk against me by an editor who I outed as a sockpuppet a couple of weeks ago. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Melody Perkins for further details. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    200.182.65.22 blocked by Toddst1 because of this I'm disinclined to block you for breaking 3RR, though you clearly have. Others may well disagree. If this anon keeps going, you need to take it to ANI, not here. And you've lost freekmighty's spelling fix , go fix it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
    My apologies for losing the typo correction. I'll take a look at it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:71.238.20.192 reported by DavidWS (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Joe the Plumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.238.20.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 15:26, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 15:29, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "")
    3. 19:25, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "")
    4. 21:38, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "")
    5. 21:44, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "")
    6. 21:46, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "")

    —DavidWS (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

    Thetoxicdump reported by Metros (Result: Page protected )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert: (4 edits in one diff, restores larger images)
    • 2nd revert: (4 edits in one diff, again restores one larger image, also removes the other image I had modified in infobox)
    • 3rd revert: (3rd restoration of larger image)
    • 4th revert: (removes unreferenced section tag I had added here)
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Submitted, Metros (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected for 3 days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    Chensiyuan reported by A State Of Trance (Result:no violation )


    Game was already over and user kept reverting back to old, outdated version of the page. I don't know why the user did this but it appears he did this to get credit for adding the win to the page. He reverted my edit and changed it from 2 to 3 in the same minute. He continued to edit war thus violating the three revert rule.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: \

    Note: I accidently signed as another user because I copied the warning from the above 3RR complaint. A State Of Trance (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    He also removed another this warning to stop his vandalism.


    Submitted, A State Of Trance (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    He then responded to the 3rr warning with this confusing comment on my talk page: link and by removing the warning from his talk page: link. A State Of Trance (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    Another user warned him on his talk page for calling me a child: diff. A State Of Trance (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    He then proceeded to call me a child again and the user that added the civility warning to his talk page, prompting the same user to add yet another warning to his talk page: link. A State Of Trance (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    No violation has occurred here. The user has only reverted there three (3) times in a 24 hour span. 3RR is for going over three reverts in a given 24-hour period. His civility is another issue, however, that will be dealt with elsewhere, Metros (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    Note: The following two comments were moved by Metros after they were left in the middle of the above report. Only the reporter should edit the report section (unless someone is attempting for help fix a format error). 04:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    The game was not over when you made those edits. Compare the time stamps. The game was still in running when the declarations of victory were made. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kaiwhakahaere reported by User:Slipgrid (Result: No violation)

    User:Kaiwhakahaere

    One Two Three I was cleaning up factual mistakes in the article when I was reverted without discussion. I asked for discussion and reverted to continue my changes. I was again revered, and I plead for more discussion as I continued my accurate changes. I was then revered a third time by the same user. Slipgrid (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    That's three reverts, not four, and the user reporting this "violation" has been blocked for edit warring, as they have been POV pushing at the article. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    No violation No currently unblocked party has yet broken the 3-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:158.143.181.94 reported by Escape Orbit (Result:31 hours )

    Feargal Sharkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 158.143.181.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:31, 28 October 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 00:39, 30 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248270782 by Srushe (talk)")
    3. 15:17, 30 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248587840 by Escape Orbit (talk)")
    4. 17:39, 30 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248629825 by Srushe (talk)")
    5. 03:59, 31 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248673115 by Escape Orbit (talk)")
    6. 18:45, 31 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248788680 by Escape Orbit (talk)")
    7. 04:35, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248884158 by Srushe (talk)")
    8. 16:39, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248967644 by Srushe (talk)")
    9. 18:27, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "(Reverted 1 edit by Srushe identified as vandalism to last revision by 158.143.181.94 . (TW))")
    • Diff of warning: here

    The Undertones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 158.143.181.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 19:32, 28 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248009436 by 80.42.108.177 (talk)")
    2. 00:38, 30 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248440225 by Cosmic Latte (talk)")
    3. 15:18, 30 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248590258 by Srushe (talk)")
    4. 17:38, 30 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248629689 by Srushe (talk)")
    5. 18:45, 31 October 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248789862 by Escape Orbit (talk)")
    6. 04:35, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248884531 by Srushe (talk)")
    7. 16:39, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 248967699 by Srushe (talk)")
    8. 18:28, 1 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 249020159 by Srushe (talk)")
    • Diff of warning: here

    This IP editor is a POV warrior who is ignoring a number of other editors' attempts to get him to discuss or cite his changes. Edits on both articles are essentially the same and reflect the editor's opinion of a complex and generally unrelated issue. User has avoided 24 hour 3RR, but contributions in the last 4 days have been to repeatedly revert without discussion. --Escape Orbit 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    While, normally, I would say "oh, he hasn't edited since the 3RR warning" or "he's not active right now," this is clearly a continued pattern of disruptive editing and, as such, I have blocked for 31 hours, Metros (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Londo06 (Result: 10 days for edit-warring)

    If you look at this user's (who has just recently got past a temporary ban for sockpuppetry) recent edit history it's out of control. He has misinterpreted some wikipedia guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Captions and even edited them himself to suit his bizarre needs.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    Refined to bring further clarity as someone clearly has a grudge here.Londo06 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    Note: Please present this case in the proper format as given here. Thank you, Metros (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 10 days Londo06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term productive editor who has been showing very strange judgment since 1 October. He has already been blocked twice since that date, once getting a week for sockpuppetry (WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf), and then 31 hours for edit warring.

    The present case is one for edit-warring on figure captions, not a 3RR. You can see the problem by looking at his last 100 contributions (which cover just a 5-hour period). He has reverted to his own preferred language at Misplaced Pages:Captions and then boldly raced through a large number of sports articles removing their captions, citing as a reason the policy language he has just inserted himself! (For instance, this edit in which he removes a caption). His last block for edit-warring was lifted by Tiptoety on 23 October with the note Per users agreement to not edit war. Please re-block if they continue. I am taking that advice to re-block, for a period of 10 days, thinking that escalation should continue upward from the one week that Londo06 received earlier. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    Historicist reported by Wikidemon (Result:24 hours )

    note - the section identifying the subject of the author, a Barack Obama contact, as a reputed Palestinian Liberation Organization "spokesman" was previously revert-warred into the article by at least two other editors, and removed among other things as a WP:BLP violation, e.g.. The editor's first insertion was therefore a revert, to re-instate the material.

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

    1. 13:33, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Family, education and career */")
      13:52, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */")
      14:32, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */")
      14:55, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */")
    2. 17:43, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 249222628 by G-Dett (talk)")
      17:44, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */ keeping this objective.")
    3. 18:03, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Family, education and career */ please stop slanting the page by removing an important job the man is documented to have held.")
    4. 18:18, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Family, education and career */ this was an important, well-documented part of the man's career.")
    • Diff of warning: here
    Warning asks editor to promise not to edit war; editor instead issues a malformed tit-for-tat cut-and-paste warning, canvasses one of the other editors who had been revert warring the material to "come back" (and presumably revert), and adds a POV tag with an edit summary that itself may be a BLP violation by re-asserting the poorly sourced claim. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    —Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Metros (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wikidemon reported by User:Historicist, November 2, 2008

    Wikidemon has been arbitrarily and repeatedly removing sourced, sinificant material without discussingh it on the talk page or giving reasons.Historicist (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist. He is very aggressive and is attempting to cover his inappropriate edits by flinging accusations at me for attempting to keep the page objective and inclusive of important nformation.Historicist (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

    Not sure of the point of this malformed tit-for-tat retributive report (see above re. a tit-for-tat warning). I have reverted the BLP vio (noted above) three times, not four, and though a BLP reversion does not count I will nevertheless not revert more than three times over it.Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


    The359 reported by Sennen goroshi (Result: )

    do talk pages not link on the 3RR report page? http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lewis_Hamilton

    the talk page is where the possible violation occurred



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

    ooops I seem to have messed up which diff to show. the fourth diff should have been:

    • 4th revert:

    the last diff was a strange one.. if I assume good faith I will assume that he only thought certain elements of my comment required removing. if I assume bad faith I will assume that he knew he had reverted me three times and decided to remove a small element in order to avoid hitting four reverts.


    • Diff of 3RR warning: not a warning to him, but a warning from him..does that count?

    oh and this is about an article talk page, does 3RR apply there? Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    The fourth revert isn't a revert at all; it's him adding a comment, Metros (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    The first is also not a revert, as I was removing off-topic discussion (from two separate editors) from a talk page, as well as adding a necessary template. The359 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    No, the first one is. People posted comments and you took them off, which is reverting. There was no need to revert that discussion, Metros (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Except it had absolutely nothing to do with the article, which counts as off-topic discussion, and the point made by the first user was simply stated in the template that was added, that off-topic discussion didn't belong there. It's no different than vandalism not counting towards 3RR. The359 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the IP's post to remind people to stay on topic. Sometimes people need to be reminded despite that box at the top. This is in no way equivalent to reverting vandalism, Metros (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, I messed up the diffs, I have edited above to show which should have been the fourth diff - should I report this? I don't want to waste peoples time as it is only a small change. Well I guess I shall wait and see if people notice it has been changed or not.Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:70.13.117.97 reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result:24 hours)

    Stanley Kurtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.13.117.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 23:34, 2 November 2008 (edit summary: "pls don't remove a cited a relevant part to this section")
    2. 01:33, 3 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 249297062 by Scjessey (talk) No violation of BLP here, just an instance of the controversy around him")
    3. 01:37, 3 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 249306989 by Scjessey (talk) its what he is most known for")
    4. 01:53, 3 November 2008 (edit summary: "3rd rv - though this time it seems two editors are coordinating their efforts")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Comments

    The IP editor (who has edited this article exclusively) is adding material in violation of WP:BLP (since it is not biographical), ignoring warnings and ignoring/eschewing talk page discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    First Diff is not a revert but was an attempt to answer the request for a valid cite. Scjessey removed cited material saying the cites were dead. That edit was including the material and two subsequent edits added new cites to replace the dead links. There hasn't been a discussion but more of a "you are wrong and must stop" conversation. 70.13.117.97 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Metros (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Scjessey reported by Amwestover (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Warning Comment: The warning was removed by the user and the user's contribution log indicated that further Misplaced Pages editing was performed afterward.

    Scjessey has been edit warring on Public image of Barack Obama, reverting edits made by myself and Britneysaints. Edit warring started when Scjessey removed two whole sections from the article, one which was recently added and another which had existed for about a week unchanged. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Removing content that doesn't belong in Obama's bio and "public image..." is a sub of it, (but if, then rather in his campaign article) is nothing more than maintaining the page. I comment here on this because if he wouldn't have beat me regarding the"Lipstick-issue" I would've reverted it in good faith. Just my 2cents about this as I'm going thru this page. Yes, I'm a curious one, hoping not to get killed like a cat.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    It was his opinion that the content didn't belong, and he somehow believes that he has a golden ticket with reverts because he claims they're all in the name of BLP. However, I didn't think any of his explanations were valid and judging by his talk page comments, to me it seems like he's using "consensus" as a way to block content that he just doesn't like. He made it very clear that he's biased in regard to the issue.
    And regardless of all that, he was still edit warring which is all that really matters. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:147.52.67.230 reported by Dr.K. (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC) (Result: Malformed )

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

    Time reported: 08:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


    • 1st revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    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.. Apart form the report being malformed, the reported IP has of now two total edits in the last 24 hours and it isn't obvious whether the previous Ip is same. Nom should watch for 3RR themsleves. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Yes. This system does not catch long term edit warring. This IP has been edit warring for about a month now but, technically, it is not over the 3RR currently and only because I did not revert due to my 3RR limit since I had two IPs reverting at the same time. I had one blocked at WP:ANI due to incivility. As the one got stopped this took over. It is an absolute mess and very discouraging for legit users. This opportunistic edit warring, unfortunately, is not caught by the 3RR system as it currently stands. I tried WP:AIV but no luck there either. Dr.K. (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    I understand. Nevertheless, semi protection hasn't resolved the problem either. Hopefully, what you're trying now helps more.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for your nice comment. I hope so too. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Rebecca reported by Damiens.rf (Result: Blocked 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Rebecca has recently received a "friendly reminder" from another admin about how, in an unrelated article, she had violated 3RR and was not blocked simply because her actions were overlooked. Now, less than a week later, she's back to edit warring. She's here long enough to know better.

    Also, Rebecca is about to violate 3RR in Amanda_Milan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just was well (she has just been warned about that). --Damiens.rf 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    R has 2R at AM. Pondering the rest, including all parties William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Based on her bad faith assumptions on the talk page and the fact that she already ignored it after I reminded her, I'm not totally convinced she won't restart later on the same page...I'm going ahead with the block. --Smashville 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Hilbert137 reported by User:Airwolf754 (Result: Protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    this article was checked extensively and approved on August 6 by Rillian (talk · contribs) Airwolf754 (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Besides the report being malformed, it seems to me that the first edit by Hilbert todat was not a revert, after whci I see two reverts for each side.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


    Sourcechecker419 reported by Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    The reverts aren't all exactly the same, but they are substantially the same. — ] (] · ]) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    And not like this joke :) Digital 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Seems clear enough; 24h. Didn't check up the article 1RR policy as didn't matter in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    217.157.207.37 reported by Camaron (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Single IP engaging in an edit war with multiple users on Eurovision Song Contest 2009 over inclusion of content in a table, s/he has ignored requests to stop. I would normally block on sight as I am an admin, but as I am involved and I have reverted within 1RR I am requesting independent assessment. The above revert diffs are only the last four, the user has actually reverted more times. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Its a fair cop guv William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for the speedy response. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    79.74.86.83 reported by O'delanca (Result: 48h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    His revertions have caused me to violate it, but as it is obvious vandalism, I hope I don't get blocked as well (I won't be editing for the next 19 hours anyway).--O'delanca (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Anon blocked for 48h for being a waste of time. *Please* mark anti-vandalism reverts with "rvv" or somesuch, or you risk being blocked yourself. Also consider reporting such to AIV rather than 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Wikidemon removed sourced material for a third time reported by User:Historicist (24h for Historicist)

    Page: Rashid Khalidi

    My most recent edit is the only one given in a 24-hour period. The old reverts were on legitimate BLP grounds and did not exceed 3RR either. This is the second bogus report against me by a retributive editor, edit warring disputed content into a BLP, who was just blocked for 3RR and returning to edit war immediately after his block. Please consider longer-term block for Historicist. (diffs coming in a moment) Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry - I got caught up in a meeting and didn't have time to do the diffs. It seems moot at this point. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.--Smashville 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    Additionally, the page has now been fully protected for a week because of the edit war, Either way (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    I've blocked H for 24h for vexatious litigation and edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

    81.149.211.246 reported by BMW67 (Result: Declined and moved to WP:BLPN)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This article has been extremely damaging to my personal and business reputation.We have taken appropriate steps to edit/undo article each time but the user continues to redo.The original article is based on fact and the edits by the reported user are malicious and extremely damaging to my business.I request that this user be blocked and that some editorial lock may be included on this article to prevent a repeat. (Miss B.M.Walsh pp Mr.Duncan Campbell/Airlie James) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.162.251 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    Declined Malformed and no obvious violation of the 3RR rule. Rather long-term BLP relevant edit warring. Opened a thread at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Duncan_Airlie_James.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    I fixed the formatting of this report. See the new entry for this case at the BLP Noticeboard. The case was filed by an IP, 78.150.162.251 (talk · contribs), who identifies herself as BMW67 (talk · contribs) (B.M.Walsh), a representative of the subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    Very nice, I was too lazy.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    68.251.188.63 reported by TheFEARgod (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    TheFEARgod reported by 68.251.188.63 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    --68.251.188.63 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment for reviewing admins: first diff is not a revert. It was the initial insertion of the disputed info. As you can see in the history, I'm not attempting a 4th revert. The three other rvs were not done in 24-hour period--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Dimitar2007 (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    He repatedly reverts the sourced version, not giving precise explanation, simply commenting the other editors are not right or in his last same revert because of bad English. He also deleted the 3RR wornings on his talk page. Dimitar2007 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    Opcn reported by Damiens.rf (Result:24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    In the edit summary for his 4th revert, Opcn says "This is my third revert...". This appears to be so because he wouldn't count the removal of my comments on the 1st revert as a revert.

    Also, he will sometime do minor changes to the reverted text (like strangely adding delete at the beginning of the deletion nomination so that it looks like a vote) , and the revert may appear disguised. --Damiens.rf 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Opcn has been discussing his edits on this forum (warning: explicit language in offwiki attacks, etc). --Damiens.rf 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours either way (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    Does that I mean I can undo his revert? It would technically my 4th revert... but doesn't this count as an exception?
    Anyway, I would be glad if someone else could simply go there and do that for me... I would certainly avoid wasting some future time in explanations...--Damiens.rf 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    Since Opcn's removal of others' comments from the AfD violates WP:TALK I have undone his last revert. I also left a note of explanation in the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot for that. It seems Opcn is evading his block by using meat puppets and editing anonymously now, but I've already reported it to ANI and it will surely be dealt with there. --Damiens.rf 16:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Orkhan ankara reported by User:Aramgar (Result: )


    • Established version:


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


    User persists in adding an unsourced flag and an unsuitable succession box, while declining to participate in talkpage discussions. I have offered several invitations on his talkpage and provided pointed links in my edit summaries . I thought that there might be a language barrier , but this belated edit suggests otherwise . It is my belief that Orkhan ankara understood the 3RR warnings on his page.

    I might add that while this editor exhibits characteristics typical of a new user, all of his comprehensible edits are tendentious and designed solely to aggrandize the Turks.


    • 1st diff of 3RR warning:
    • 1st diff of 3RR warning:

    Aramgar (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:Orpheus (Result:24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: (and see also ).


    User has declared his intention to continue reverting regardless. Orpheus (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    • You have to notify first, then wait for another reversion. Anyway, this still falls under the BLP exemption for 3RR since you are attempting to smear a living person with no credible evidence (sources provided do not indicate guilt). This also falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, both of which are BLP violations in this case. I invite an administrator to review my actions and advise. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I declared my intention to continue reverting this article until 8 o'clock PM tonight, when we will be clear of any direct influence on the Washington State Legislative election. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    Categories: