Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. 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.
Click here to create a new report

User:Finn Diesel reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked for 1 week)

Page: Attila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and Turanid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Finn Diesel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

F.D. was already blocked three times for revert-warring over this same article (in fairness, note that the second of the three recent blocks in his log was partly in error, cf. here, but the revert-warring charge is pertinent). Returned immediately after his block, continuing the exact same reverts against consensus of multiple other users. This is exacerbated by the fact that he blanket-reverts irrespective of multiple unrelated intermediate edits, without ever discussing any objection to anything except one aspect (image use). Conduct on talk page shows he is utterly incapable of engaging in a constructive dialogue on this matter and simply doesn't "get" what others are saying.

• 11 August 21:32
• 12 August 11:30
• 12 August 11:40
• 13 August 08:44
• Probably also this sock IP: [1][2] (see [3] for explanation of evidence)

Warnings since latest block: [4], [5]

Also now edit-warring at Turanid, using fake sources [6].

I request a lengthy block and/or topic ban (possibly indefinite) under WP:DIGWUREN. See earlier report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Attila the Hun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Future Perfect, I'm not going to treat this as an arbitration enforcement action, please file at WP:AE if you wish, but this block is explicitly for the 3RR and only the 3RR. Courcelles 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Monkeymanman reported by 90.200.240.178 (Result: Page protected for one week)

Page: Racism in association football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monkeymanman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

• 4th revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 1st revert: [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:

An editor in clear breach of 3RR here. Perhaps more worryingly, he or she is refusing to WP:FOC and insists that additions from a particular user are de facto "bad faith" or "pov". He or she is now repeatedly deleting them apparently without even examining them. I would note this editor has caused problems for other editors at the same article before [14] and has been warned for edit warring in the recent past [15] Personally, I have made genuine attempts to discuss content on the talk page, which has only been met with ad hominems. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay where do I start. This user has used IP addresses User talk:90.194.100.16, User talk:194.80.49.252, User talk:155.136.80.35, User talk:90.197.236.12,User talk:90.207.105.117, User talk:90.197.224.58, and has an editing history of adding controversial, dubious and potentially damaging material onto peoples BLP’s across Wikipedia. He has been warned before here and here. With previous block here. The user stated that he would comply with the rules after his block but has gone straight back to editing in the same manner. He has now received numerous warnings here. I have given the user plenty of opportunities to open dispute res about this and every other edit that they have made recently but they have refused. I would welcome someone to review this users editing history of the material they have been adding to articles and the numerous experienced editors (I do not include myself in that) that have rejected the inclusions on various grounds. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• This user the IP is operating from multiple IP addresses and was recently blocked for policy violations, he is edit warring at multiple articles and is the subject of at least two recent threads at the BLPN. The user is adding controversial content at multiple articles most of it with a strong POV against the subjects, most of which is flagged as possible violations by bots. Myself and Monkey and another couple of users have been attempting to discuss the issue with him without any success and multiple experienced editors have been reverting the IP at multiple locations. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Controversial" maybe but always neutrally worded and attributed to a reliable source. Whatever you and other involved parties have been "attempting to discuss" it isn't content. Anyway, this report does not relate to the validity of my additions at Racism in football or elsewhere (though I stand by them). It relates to this clear and conspicuous breach of 3RR. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• All of your additions are controversial, and all of them are being reverted by multiple experienced editors. This report is actually about you are your disruption at multiple locations, this report is just a point on that disruptive path that you are on. I also notice that you didn't even give monkey his warning until after he made the last revert. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protected Use dispute resolution, not reverts please. --Chris (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Every single edit he has made has been controversial. He is only on here to wind people up (although he'll deny it). He has never contributed anything positive to wikipedia. It would be nice if he'd admit that rather than carrying on with this act of his and acting innocent when anyone complains about him. stanley87 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is a topic for a different noticeboard. --Chris (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Whether There's Weather Underground reported by Wikidemon (talk) (Result: 24h block)

Page: Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Whether There's Weather Underground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor, has been edit warring against at least 3 others to re-open a discussion closed on WP:BLP grounds speculating into the sexuality of a judge. The BLP harm is that editors working on this active article, seeing the discussion, believe unconfirmed rumors that the judge is in fact gay, and obviously inaccurate claims that he is "openly gay". The new editor is an apparent WP:SPA originally created to insert "terrorist" into the William Ayers article, and does not seem to have made any productive contributions to the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 01:52, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Judge Walker openly gay */")
2. 03:02, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "No, it's not.")
3. 11:41, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Judge Walker openly gay */")
4. 14:11, 13 August 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Cut that out. You don't get to lie and claim "consensus" when there isn't, and your tactics of trying to "close" the debate when discussion is still ongoing are dishonest at best.")
5. [16] (after report filed)

• Diff of warning: here

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Chris (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sceptre reported by User:Vexorg (Result: Page protected for one week)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Criticism of YouTube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

1. 04:21, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "if that counts as proper sourcing then David Cameron is a secret Trotskyist who has gay sex with Nick Clegg all night long")
2. 04:27, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Animal Abuse */ "breathing air has been critcised by the carbon monoxide society"; that is, don't say that people are criticising something when it's fucking obvious they would do")
3. 04:28, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by Vexorg (talk) to last version by Sceptre")
4. 04:45, 14 August 2010

=

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user has jumped in without bothering to go to the talk page and looking at he edit history feels he owns the page. I also draw attention to his inappropriate comments in his reversions.

Comments:

Vexorg (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Two reverts, not even close to breaking 3RR. Please note complainant has been blocked before for edit-warring on this article. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It take two to edit war sonny. I am restoring properly sourced material. You are the one who jumped into edit war. Your politically biased rationale at ANI explains all. Vexorg (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

just to note. the editor Sceptre has continued to edit war even after I filed this report. I rest my case. He has removed a whole section which was properly sourced. Vexorg (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... YouTube and the other sites you're sourcing aren't reliable sources. Netalarm^talk 05:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm.. Some videos at YouTube are acceptable. The ones in question may or may not be but it is best to not make such a broad statement when there is already confusion.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but very few. Only videos for partner channels of already reliable sources (such as, say, CNN) are reliable. YouTube is unreliable by default. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You were doing fine until "YouTube is unreliable by default." It is those sort of statements that have caused confusion throughout the community.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I didn't make it clearer. He's citing some user's page and a search query (I had looked at it when this issue was first brought up). Netalarm^talk 05:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

...But it is. YouTube videos, by and large, fail the guidelines at WP:IRS. Even a lot of partner channels do that. It's not wrong to suggest a website where 99.99999% of the content posted is inadmissable as a reliable source is unreliable by default. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Netalarm. I assumed as much. I am just extra pissy about statements like that since for over a year I assumed it was no good EVER and then found out it wasn't. I even wrote an essay. Not the best place for an overall discussion on it anyways so oops on my end. And use "many" or "most" instead of blanket statements next time Sceptre. Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protected The talk page is thataway. --Chris (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. hopefully this Sceptre kid guy will see it. Vexorg (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

See what? That you insist on introducing policy-violating, anti-semitic bullshit that others have to clean up? Sceptre ^(talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The user 'Sceptre is clearly an anti-social and hateful editor by spewing this bile like 'anti-semitic bullshit'. I won't lower myself to respond to it this hate talk. Wikipedia should be above this kind of thing. I leave administrators to deal with editors like him. Vexorg (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

139.48.25.60 reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Cautioned submitter)

On the Blitzkrieg this IP is repeatedly adding nonsensical information which had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Despite the intervention and suggestion of another editor[18], with whom I agree but nothing yet has been done, he persists in reverting my logical restorations and calling it vandalism. This I deem to be a personal attack. He won't engage any constructive discussion, bar this [19] post made on my talk page –unless of course his version remains in while discussion remains on going. I would appreciate some assistance. Dapi89 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Cautioned submitter. The IP seems to believe *you* should be required to discuss, while he himself has never been to the talk page. Even so, nothing prevents you from starting the discussion. Please don't scold other editors in the move log. Consider opening a discussion at WP:RM to see if your idea for renaming this article is widely supported. Otherwise your move of the Blitzkrieg article to Blitzkrieg (Military term) could be seen as a way of continuing your content dispute with the IP by other means. You could leave a neutral message at WT:MILHIST asking other editors to give their opinion on the proper scope of this article, and whether the uses of 'blitzkrieg' in cancer research merit inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven’t made any sense. If I have a problem with an article, the onus is on me to make the approach. *He* should discuss first. Thanks for wasting my time, legitimising poor edits, and allowing an anon to make a mockery of a serious article. There already exists a disambiguation page for other uses of the term. Perhaps you should have looked a little harder. Dapi89 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kober reported by User:Petri Krohn (Result: notified)

Page: Mikheil Saakashvili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: John Shalikashvili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mikheil Saakashvili

Previous version reverted to: [20]

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd edit - massive taging: [23]

John Shalikashvili

Previous version reverted to: [24]

• 1st revert: [25]
• 2nd revert: [26]
• 3rd edit - Speedy request and blanking of redirect [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] The initial edit war was between Russavia (talk · contribs) and Kober. I have not interacted with Kober, except for the talk page discussions listed above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28], [29]

Comments:
This is not a case of 3RR and I am not asking for a block. However, I feel that this case might fall under WP:DIGWUREN and I ask the user be given a DIGWUREN warning as listed here: List of editors placed on notice – The user has not been previously warned although his edit history shows a pattern of aggressive edit warring in articles falling under the DIGWUREN remedies. Also, in this case I feel that my edits on unrelated pages may have been WP:STALKed and targeted for revert as punishment for restoring content that the user does not like. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Without voicing any opinion on the merits of the given edits, some of the talk page posts sound unnecessarily aggressive and provoking, something that we really don't need in this topic area. Thus I think it is a good idea to notify the user of the sanctions, and so it is done. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Severino reported by User:Tallicfan20 (Result: Protected for two weeks)

Page: Israel-South Africa relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Severino: Severino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

• 1st revert: [31]
• 2nd revert: [32]
• 3rd revert: [33]
• 4th revert: [34]
• 5th revert: [35]
• 6th revert: [36]
• 7th revert: [37]
• 8th revert: [38]
• 9th revert: [39]
• 10th revert: [40]
• 11th revert: [41]
• 12th revert: [42]
• 13th revert: [43]
• 14th revert: [44]
• 15th revert: [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

My problem is that Severino has a clear political agenda. He is attempting to single out Israel amongst other nations that had good relations with South Africa, like US, UK, France, etc. by dividing the article into "Relations with apartheid South Africa" and "post-apartheid," even tho this isn't how the US, Australia, Canada, Germany articles on SA relations are divided, even tho they were generally on good terms with apartheid-era South Africa, nor is this how other pages are divided with countries that didn't have good relations with apartheid South Africa. I have simply tried to make the article fair. The US is widely seen to even have propped up the regime or helped give it some legitimacy. France and the UK are also known to have helped armed it militarily, yet there are no articles dedicated to that. Severino keeps reverting to promote there ALLEGATION WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN that Israel offered SA nukes, and when articles are added which don't add to this tale, he deletes them, dismissing them as "blogs," even tho . His edits are in bad faith, and his other recent edits show his history of POV and agenda pushing. I suggest something be done.Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected Both sides have been actively edit warring over this page for a long time, therefore I have protected the page for two weeks. Both participants are advised to follow the WP:BRD cycle. --Chris (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

the hypocritical applicant deserves to be reported here. it's clearly him who has a (hysterical nationalist) political agenda which he pursues here, to the disadvantage of wikipedia (which can be seen by his edit history). i already adviced him several times that he is free to change the article about US-SA relations, also dividing it into apartheid and post apartheid era. instead of doing so, he keeps on vandalizing the article about IL SA relations. i don't want to write too much about the topic here although it's clear for informed persons without blinders that israel has played a special role in supporting the south african apartheid regime (something which is NOT reflected by dividing the history of relations into apartheid and post apartheid, by the way! SAs foreign policy in regard to allmost all countries changed with the end of apartheid so it makes sense to reflect that in these artcles). i've inserted referenced information about that which Tallicfan20 has deleted immediately..he also inserts information which is referenced only by a blog which is against wikipedia policy. it can't be the purpose of wikipedia to erase and omit facts which can be interpreted to the disadvantage of a country or collective, and those which only some special "user" interprete this way (the more so as this user has no problem to denounce other collectives, on the contraray).tallicfan keeps on bashing with personal attacks like in the edit comment here and in the comment above. i welcome the protection of the article to stop tallicfans edit warring but indicate to the saved insertion of a blog information and tallicfans behaviour in general..--Severino (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimmy McDaniels reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Page protected for one week)

Page: Jason Leopold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jimmy McDaniels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 22:15, 13 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Salon article removal */ Discuss it on the talk page. As I stated previously, this 8 year old article is still available via Lexis from Salon")
2. 22:20, 13 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Career */")
3. 22:55, 13 August 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 378787657 by Off2riorob (talk) Like everyone else, including me, you can take it to the talk page and discuss it thereYworo (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)")
4. 23:09, 13 August 2010 (edit summary: "actually, you're wrong. Jill Stewart has her own wikipedia page. She's quite prominent. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stewart I will link to her")
5. 17:35, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* California Energy Crisis */ link fixed")
6. 17:41, 14 August 2010 (edit summary: "/* Career */ added kurtz. It's relevant that the author of the story is also featured in the book by his own admission. Readers deserve to know that")

• Diff of warning: here

• Note that User:Jimmy McDaniel previously edited as 76.246.156.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Check the talk page, he has two three four formal 3RR warnings, numerous other warnings, and multiple final warnings. Both the IP and the user have been previously blocked.

—Yworo (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy was also warned not to edit war by the admin who unblocked him early from his last block. Yworo (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected No 3RR violation, but definitely edit warring. Please use the talk page and follow the WP:BRD process. --Chris (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Yworo reported by User:Jimmy McDaniels (Result: Page protected for one week)

Page: Jason Leopold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see, Yworo is accusing me of being Jason Leopold. He offers up no evidence. Apparently, someone who is passionate about something is automatically deemed to be the subject. This false allegation only serves to underscore my point that this person should not be involved in editing this article. Yworo, since you're supposed to be working in the world of facts and sources, find a source that proves I'm Jason Leopold. Until then, keep your claims to yourself. I am using my real name for transparency. Should I accuse you of being Howard Kurtz maybe?

And as I said on my own talk page, I went to Amazon.com and looked inside Leopold's book using the "look inside" feature and found the Kurtz reference, which is criticism. I then have been working to find a source to cite that has this material. I've read the edit warring and I am just stunned that Yworo appears to have difficulty adhering to his own advice, which can be proven by looking at the edit history and the comments he/she has left on the talk page and my talk page. Yworo's comments are not that of an unbiased editor but rather someone who have a personal issue. Accusing me of being the subject of the article is a perfect example. Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• (cur | prev) 19:31, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,698 bytes) (Undid revision 378907882 by Yworo (talk) self-revert and tag for verification) (undo) [automatically accepted]
• (cur | prev) 18:00, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,557 bytes) (Undid revision 378905170 by Jimmy McDaniels (talk) you still haven't sourced that fact) (undo) [accepted by Yworo]

1. (cur | prev) 07:13, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,079 bytes) (→California Energy Crisis: neither link in this "reference" works, remove) (undo) [automatically accepted]
2. (cur | prev) 07:05, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,581 bytes) (→Career: quote the report rather than inaccurately summarize it) (undo) [automatically accepted]
3. (cur | prev) 06:49, 14 August 2010 Yworo (talk | contribs) (17,383 bytes) (→Career: this bit is unsourced) (undo) [automatically accepted]Jimmy McDaniels (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Refutation

I've made only three unbroken series of edits to Jason Leopold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the last 24 hours:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

And I self-reverted the third to allow Jimmy to show that the source given verifies the last statememt preceeding it. This is simply a retaliatory report and an attempt to excuse his 6 reverts in the last 24 hours. Yworo (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected No 3RR violation, but definitely edit warring. Please use the talk page and follow the WP:BRD process. --Chris (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:AgadaUrbanit reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 1RR extended, users topic banned)

Page: Gaza War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]

Comments:
The page is under a 1RR as posted by an edit notice on the article. AgadaUrbanit received a 24 hr block for violating that, then performed a large number of reverts in the 24 hourse after that block and was blocked for a week. Today, Agada waited 24 hours and 21 minutes to make the 2nd revert. This 1 day after the 1 week block expired.

nableezy - 07:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of them. Nableezy made plenty of reverts since this article went to 1/rr. So forgetting all of the edit warring he did previously on the exact same line, since August 1st:

• [49] note that it is a revert to AgadaUrbanit
• [50] note that it is a revert to AgadaUrbanit
• [51]
• [52]
• [53] note that it is a :revert to AgadaUrbanit

3/rr is not an entitlement and 1/rr is certainly not. Block them both.Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Those reverts are for the most part 2 or 3 days apart. I realize you have some sort of infatuation with me, but this report is about Agada who made almost 10 reverts in the 3 days he has been unblocked since the 1/rr was placed. Kindly find somewhere else to push for a block of me. nableezy - 07:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Gaza War is under a 1RR due to edit warring. Previously the article was locked for a number of months due to the same problem, hope this would not be s resolution this time. imho, nableezy prefers noticeboard side of WP to discussion on the article talk page. The 2nd revert brought by nableezy was discussed on the article talk page by nono and nableezy, policy based argument was rejected..AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

On an article that is subject to 1RR, it really is not a good idea to do five reverts in a two-week period, either. The whole point of 1RR is that you really shouldn't be reverting unless you have a damn good reason, and it is absolutely not a license to revert once a day, especially since edit warring is what caused the 1RR to be imposed in the first place. It seems that not even a two-week 1RR restriction could curb the users' desire to edit war. Fine, then. I have warned previously that any attempts to edit war will result in a lengthy break from this topic area, and that is what will be done. Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:

1. The 1RR restriction on Gaza War, originally set to expire 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC), is extended to run indefinitely.
2. AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for three months.
3. Nableezy (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks.

Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)