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 21:48, 25 June 2008 editMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Frédérick Duhautpas (Result: ): result← Previous edit Revision as of 22:20, 25 June 2008 edit undoProtonk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,727 edits →Violations: 3RR for WQA title revertsNext edit →
Line 582: Line 582:


* Pretty egregious edit-warring. I've blocked both {{user|Ada Kataki}} and {{user|Xr 1}} for 24 hours. The IP {{userIP|88.87.6.55}} appears to be in use for this edit war as well by a participant, so I've also blocked the IP for 24 hours. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC) * Pretty egregious edit-warring. I've blocked both {{user|Ada Kataki}} and {{user|Xr 1}} for 24 hours. The IP {{userIP|88.87.6.55}} appears to be in use for this edit war as well by a participant, so I've also blocked the IP for 24 hours. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Discussion_concerning_the_behavior_of_Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles_and_Protonk_in_Recent_AfDs}}. {{3RRV|Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles}}

Time reported: 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: This is the original WQA and has not been 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: I haven't reverted a fourth time.

*Diff of 3RR warning: , , .


= Example = = Example =

Revision as of 22:20, 25 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)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    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:Pseudo daoist reported by User:456hjk (Result:)

    Time reported: 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


    • 1st revert: Revision as of 23:42, 23 June 2008
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: Revision as of 03:50, 24 June 2008
    It's customary to warn users before reporting them here, or at least explain why you have not warned them first. No further action. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    he knew about the three reversions, and he has been warned about it but he blanked that section: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Pseudo_daoist&diff=207720560&oldid=207692411 456hjk (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:24.205.234.250 reported by User:Species8473 (Result: 1 week)

    Time reported: 06:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

    Comments
    Reported and blocked before for edit warring at Great power see previous entry. Also see ban circumvent at admin noticeboard.
    Continued edit war behavior with proxies during time of previous block. Suspecting bad faith there, for connections don't start running via a proxy automatically.
    "Looks like you've found yourselves a couple of open proxies: 66.17.49.165 is very likely (multiple suspicious ports) to be a proxy, 69.239.171.174 is very suspicious (open telnet and http, looks like it may be behind some sort of hardware firewall)" (see here)
    Update. The two IPs suggested to be open proxies above have been blocked one year each by ST47. The main account, 24.205.234.250 (talk · contribs), seems to be a POV warrior. During his brief recent period of activity (in June 08) I believe that all his article edits have been reverted by others. The combination of a previous block, new 3RR violation, POV warring and sockpuppetry using open proxies would, in my view, justify the IP equivalent of an indef block for 24.205.234.250 (talk · contribs). (Perhaps six months). I'll let someone else decide whether to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Tymek reported by User:Matthead (Result: Protected)

    Time reported: 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected There are enough reverts here by Tymek to break 3RR, but Matthead would be at the same point if it weren't for the providential arrival of two single-purpose IPs to help him revert. (Neither IP has any WP edit except this one time). This appears to be a harmless biographical article which has turned into a political football for German-Polish disputes. As such it could fall under the Digwuren Arbcom restrictions. (Tymek's side of the dispute does possess a certain logic, because there is no source offered to show whether this ethnic German man was personally affected by the expulsion of Germans from Poland after WW 2). If other editors have a better idea what to do, please suggest it. Until then, I'm putting on two weeks of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    This closure should not imply that Matthead is using alternate accounts. It's just that to find that one editor violated 3RR you need to believe there were more editors in good standing on the other side, so that none of them had to go over three reverts. SPAs don't yet have standing, good or bad. This is also not a comment on the quality or neutrality of the version that is now protected. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    Overlong discussion that ought to continue at Talk:Friedrich Scherfke to have any value for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The article on Scherfke was harmless until user Matthead began inserting information about expulsions of Germans. Scherfke himself is largely unknown in Germany, I have a hunch that if I had not created the article, user Matthead would not have heard about him. Anyway, I am not denying sufferings of Germans who were forced to leave their heimats after WW2, it is a sad chapter of history of Europe. But with Scherfke IMO the situation was different. He was a soldier of the Wehrmacht and with his unit was moved to Western Europe, where the British caught him. He was not a victim of expulsion, we do not even know if he wanted to come back to Communist-controlled Poznan after the war, let me remind you that tens of thousands of Polish soldiers decided to settle in Western Europe, as they did not want to live under Communism. Thank you and I am awaiting opinions of other users and user Matthead himself. Tymek (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    Opinions are plenty, how about facts instead: The German Misplaced Pages article on Scherfke was created on 4. Feb. 2006, almost two months before Tymek's wrote about him on en-Wiki on 29 March 2006. On 17 maj 2006, pl-Wiki followed. Same for Ernst Willimowski, his German article was started on 1. Jan. 2005, pl-Wiki followed on 2 maj 2005, and Tymek only on 21 March 2006. See also WP:OWN. And it was an anon from 92856 Orange, California who was inserting information about expulsions of Germans in April 2008. I had first edited the German article and then edited the English one. Then User:Space Cadet edited, followed by an anon from 94203 Sacramento, California, thus four editors had agreed that the expulsions are relevant before Tymek removed for the first time. Then I proposed neutral wording that only mentioned that "At the time, many Germans were victim of" expulsions, without claiming that Scherfke was affected directly, leaving it to the reader to connect the dots. Tymek seemed to have accepted this for at least a month. Yet, several days ago, Tymek suddenly removed, with an anon from Rostock (dynamic IP in the 84.139.2*.* range from Germany biggest ISP) trying to reinsert it four times within three days, only with Tymek always reverting. So much about facts we know. Thus it were 5 editors with "standing" who approved of including the expulsions before Tymek started editwarring to make the article "harmless" to his POV.
    We also know that West Berlin was totally destroyed, surrounded by communists and subject to the Berlin blockade, which caused hunger among the population, which comprised both natives and refugees. Nobody would voluntarily pick that city to live in - unless, for example, relatives had wound up there, unable to proceed further West, or waiting there as close as possible to their home, hoping that they could return one day. Asking for a source that an ethnic German from east of Oder-Neisse rivers "was personally affected by the expulsion of Germans from Poland after WW 2", like admin EdJohnston did above, is like questioning whether an ethnic Jew from a German occupied area was personally affected by the Holocaust. Tymek not only edit warred about Scherfke, but in the bio on Ernst Willimowski removed the background info on the Silesian Uprisings after which, despite the plebiscite in which the Silesians voted to remain in Germany, a part of Silesia was given to Poland, making six year old Ernst a Pole. On the other hand, Tymek recently created the article Wawelberg Group, praising a bunch of Polish terrorists who started the Third Silesian Uprising in 1921, blowing up railway bridges in Weimar Germany. Tymek also edit warred to remove relevant info about the 20th century history of the Silesian family of current German striker Miroslav Klose, while adding far-fetched 10th century claims to that bio.
    EdJohnston, as done previously on your talk, I strongly urge you to fully remove "Matthead would be at the same point if it weren't for the providential arrival of two single-purpose IPs to help him revert" which violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:AGFs towards me and those three Rostock, Orange and Sacramento based anon editors who you falsely describe as "Neither IP has any WP edit except this one time". Also, I urge you to reconsider your decision to decline consequences to the undeniable fact that Tymek broke 3RR, be it a block and/or addition to the Digwuren Arbcom restrictions you cited. While 29 odd editors are listed there, for example this user never had been added there by "any uninvolved administrator", which illustrates the questionableness of this list which contains only two names familiar as Polish to me (a third had been added and removed). -- Matthead  Discuß   14:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    A checkuser needs to be performed. There are way to many wiki savvy IPs aiding Matthead on Misplaced Pages in revert wars for it to be a pure coincident.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    Matthead, we are not talking about Wilimowski, Klose or Wawelberg. Please. You keep on adding irrelevant information, it makes no sense to write history of Silesia in the Miroslaw Klose or Ernest Wilimowski bio articles. Tymek (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    Both Matthead and Tymek: This page isn't for continuing your dispute. Head to the article's talk page for that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    I struck out part of my opinion on this case, after hearing some of the comments made, and boxed up a discussion which is too long for this noticeboard. The page is still protected, and I look forward to some of the editors here making suggestions at Talk:Friedrich Scherfke on how to improve the article. Anyone who still thinks the closure was wrong can comment at User talk:EdJohnston, or raise the matter at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Levine2112 (Result: User already blocked )

    Resolved

    Time reported: 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


    User has a history of edit warring and even now is involved in an edit war on Misplaced Pages talk:Fringe theories

    ScienceApologist is making most of the reverts claiming that he is reverting the work of a banned user. This may be true. But we don't know for sure. ScienceApologist has not provided any evidence that these removals were of posts of a sockpuppet of an identified banned user. He was warned several times by User:Jossi , but went right on reverting disruptively.

    Just a drive-by comment ... most of the time, sock puppets are reverted long before the sock puppet report is closed, without consequence. I certainly don't let Editor652's or Soccermeko's edits linger any longer than forced to by the time it takes for my watchlist to process, even though the sockpuppet report may take days. Unless people believe that SA's sock puppet report was filed in bad faith, his reverts are reasonable.
    Kww (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    Per request by ScienceApologist "I was also going to respond to a 3RR report that was made by User:Levine2112 at WP:3RN basically saying I'm sorry for the fourth revert and would undo the revert myself, but it has been a hectic night and the situation is rapidly spiraling out of control. Can someone note that for me? I just want to be unblocked so I can defend myself at the appropriate places and get someone to notice the Davkal sockpuppetry. Thanks." Opps. forgot to sign earlier. Ward20 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    Unless I am mistaken, none of the four reverts at Fringe Theories had anything to do with any suspected sockpuppets of Davkal. That is just a red-herring here. -- Levine2112 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    Note that Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories has been protected, and while Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/210.194.40.149 is technically still open, the account does appear to be another Davkal sock. PhilKnight (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Googie man reported by User:AnotherSolipsist (Result: already blocked)

    Time reported: 03:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been here since 2004.

    User:DavidOaks reported by User:Webster121 (Result: No violation )

    Time reported: 03:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Two of these diffs are the same, and one is from days before the others. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    I concur. Furthermore, I have given a final warning to Webster121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit warring, which he was blocked three times for in recent months. This is nothing new, and I have left the notice at user talk:Webster121#June 2008. seicer | talk | contribs 04:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have blocked Webster121 one week for continuing to revert past the final warning issued by Seicer, taking into account three previous blocks for edit warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:92.237.53.167 reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: No violation)

    Time reported: 12.12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    'Comment' I have tried to communicate with this fellow but he/she does not respond. The quotation he is changing is actually from Sir Denzil Ibbeston's Book http://en.wikipedia.org/Sir_Denzil_Ibbetson , and not an opinion but a verifiable fact from a reliable source.

    No violation There is no recent 24-hour period in which this editor reverted more than three times. Consider asking at a related WikiProject for help with the article; for instance Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject India. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:456hjk reported by User:pseudo daoist (Result: )

    Time reported: 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:GreenMile reported by ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) (Result: 8 hours)

    Meher Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GreenMile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 03:02, 23 June 2008 (edit summary: "Now this is just getting mean-spirited. :-(")
    2. 03:16, 23 June 2008 (edit summary: "Jossi you are not understanding this at all. Please read my note on the discussion page.")
    3. 03:25, 23 June 2008 (edit summary: "Relegated to another article? There is one called perfect master? This has only a side importance to Baba himself")
    4. 15:04, 23 June 2008 (edit summary: "Let's find out what the peer reviewer says. I think an outside eye will help more than tags right now.")
    • Diff of warning: here

    This editor keeps reverting each and any of my edits to this and other related articles, removing request for sources tags, and other templates, as well as removing content and sources. —≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Matthew reported by User:Edokter (Result: No action right now)

    Time reported: 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


    Content violating the non-free content policy is exempt from the three-revert rule (Misplaced Pages:3RR#Unwanted edits). It may be that you disagree with the policy but you must still follow it. Matthew (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, you have that the wrong way round; 3RR is not exempt by any policy except WP:BLP and vandalism. — Edokter • Talk • 15:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    Obviously I meant edits to remove content violating the non-free content policy are exempt from the three-revert rule (or "without counting towards"). Matthew (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    It is up to the closer of the 3RR report to determine whether to believe the WP:NFCC argument for any particular revert. Anyone who reverts based solely on their own personal opinion about an NFCC situation is risking sanctions. A 3RR closer might notice that there is an IfD debate in progress about the future of that image, and perceive that Matthew is reverting without waiting for the result of that debate. To avoid risking an adverse decision, I suggest that Matthew should voluntarily undo his last revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that Matthew's edits do not fall under the exemption as the compliance or otherwise with NFCC. However, as he has, or had, a good-faith belief that his edits were exempt, I am not going to block now, but am placing a warning here and on his talk page that any further reverting will leave him liable to be blocked (and can be appended to this report). Stifle (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Savvy10 reported by User:MissMJ (Result: stale)

    Time reported: 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: Multiples, see below.


    • 1st revert to:
    • 2nd revert to: + user made additional edits while reverting
    • 3rd revert to:
    • 4th revert to:
    • 5th revert to:
    • 6th revert to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert (in 3 steps):
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert (in 2 steps):
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Sorry for the messiness of the report, but this whole situation is messy. User:Savvy10 insists on adding information to the Elimination chart that other editors think should be kept out (talk page discussion on the topic). Not including such information has also been touched on here, here, here, and here. In some instances the user reverts the removal of the information by other editors, in others s/he adds the information manually. This has been going on for over a week. MissMJ (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Stale Most of these reverts are several days old. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. Please report violations promptly. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      I originally reported this over at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because I didn't think it was appropriate to post it here precisely because there technically weren't 3 reverts made in 24 hours. I was told to report this here anyway. I think that although 3RR wasn't expressly violated, this is still an edit war that has been going on for almost two weeks, with one user making the same edits over and over; s/he's just being smart/slow about it. It doesn't make constantly policing that article for changes any less frustrating. Is there anything that can be done? MissMJ (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Agrippina Minor reported by User:DanielEng (Result: Malformed)

    Repeatedly erasing sourced material from Nastia Liukin as "unsourced POV." , , , , (one source is offline but was verified by several users before it disappeared; second was given after first deletion). User refuses to discuss actions and has been warned about blanking/discussing content on Talk Page , and when warned, simply said "report away." I'e reverted three times now but will wait to hear from admis before reverting again--if this counts as vandalism (blanking content) I will; if it's a content dispute, I won't.DanielEng (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:The Haunted Angel reported by User:156.34.223.180 (Result: 6 hours)

    Comment Editor has come close to violating WP:3RR on a number of pages. He has used the Twinkle vandalism tool to revert edits that clearly are not vandalism. Although he attempts to justify his 3RR violation by claiming the reverted edits were vandalism. Following a warning for 3RR violation the editor blatantly said he was going to ignore the warning as he sees his edits as vandalism reverts even though they are clearly a simply content issue. A clear ignorance of the WP:3RR policy. 156.34.223.180 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Added note: User has now blanked the 3RR warning they were given earlier. 156.34.223.180 (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:C.Marsh b.Lillee reported by User:Matilda (Result: 24 hours)

    Time reported: 01:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Pseudo daoist reported by User:456hjk (Result: warned)

    Time reported: 08:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


    • 1st revert: Revision as of 23:42, 23 June 2008
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: Revision as of 03:50, 24 June 2008
    It's customary to warn users before reporting them here, or at least explain why you have not warned them first. No further action. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    he knew about the three reversions, and he has been warned about it but he blanked that section: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Pseudo_daoist&diff=207720560&oldid=207692411 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.139.221 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Raryel reported by User:Killerofcruft (Result: 24 hours)

    Time reported: 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)



    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours seicer | talk | contribs 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    This block appears to have been improper. The user was not warned until 14:59. The last revert was at 15:00. The block was at 15:02, prior to the filing of this report. One minute is not adequate to respond to a warning, the user may, indeed, be in the middle of an edit and have no knowledge of it.--Abd (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:92.10.4.231 reported by User:Justin A Kuntz (Result: semiprotected)

    Time reported: 16:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


    Editor is clearly aware of WP:3RR see and is using a dynamic IP address. All of these are the same editor:

    92.8.139.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.41.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.186.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.115.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.12.29.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.11.143.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    92.10.4.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    I have attempted to explain to this editor the need for reliable sources and Edit Warring. In response, the edit has followed me onto a friends talk page and and is clearly ignoring attempts to resolve the situations and to understand wiki policies; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP Editor Vandalism? Not Sure and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Larry Lamb (actor). Edit warring behaviour also on Larry Lamb (actor), Joanna Page, James Thornton (actor) and Bruce Mackinnon. When I've discussed the edit warring behaviour he turns round and accuses me of edit warring, I mentioned the fact that he was stalking me on my friends Talk page and now he accuses me of wiki-stalking see diffs above. In response to the vandalism warning he accuses me of vandalism. Editor doesn't provide sources to back up his changes and misrepresents the source here. I'm kinda bemused by the whole thing because the edits he is edit warring over are fairly trivial. Stopped myself at 3 edits and have no intention of further revisions but for the record Guy Berryman is Scottish not English. Justin talk 16:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Note to editors - "Just A Kuntz" has been repeatedly wiki-stalking me and reverting my edits for no reason. He repeatedly claims I'm wiki-stalking HIM - but if you check edit history/patterns you will see it is in fact the other way round. You may also note he has started edit warring with me on several articles and has reached the 3RR before myself. He also attacked me with vandalism warning, of which he has already been told my edits are not vandalism - when it is actually him who is reverting my edits and removing sourced facts from articles. If anyone should be blocked for 3RR or wiki-stalking it is "Justin A Kuntz".

    92.10.193.113 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC) If the ip is able to change their address then a block is pointless. semiprotected for 7 days. Spartaz 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:86.42.183.1 reported by User:TheRetroGuy (Result: SEMIPROTECTED )

    Time reported: 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: Multiples, see below


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

    Note: In addition to this evening's edit warring, edits from the above IP address and others beginning 86.4 appear to have been a problem for some time. The user (probably the same person) typically makes trivial and repetetive edits, listing ten or fifteen random artists as an influence/follower of an artist. Also refuses to engage in dialogue with other editors. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    • semi-protected for a week. If thye can change their ip readily it pointless blocking the ip. Youmay wish to ask a checkuser if a range-block can be imposed if the vandalism continues. Spartaz 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:218.186.68.124 reported by User:Musashi1600 (Result: 24 hours each, semiprotection)

    Time reported: 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    I'm slightly confused how to report this, since this user appears to be in an edit war with User:129.71.73.243 over this article, and the two keep reverting each other's edits. In any case, both users have clearly violated the 3RR rule, as the article edit log makes clear.


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

    Musashi1600 (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Both IPs blocked for 24 hours for ridiculous levels of edit-warring; I've also semiprotected the page for 1 week to prevent continuation by other dynamic IP's. MastCell  21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:129.71.73.243 reported by User:Musashi1600 (Result: 24 hours each, semiprotection)

    Time reported: 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    As mentioned in my report above this, this user appears to be in an edit war with User:218.186.68.124 over this article, and the two keep reverting each other's edits. Both users have clearly violated the 3RR rule, as the article edit log makes clear.


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • See above; I've blocked both IP's for 24 hours and semiprotected the page for a week given the likelihood of ongoing issues with dynamic IP's. MastCell  21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:Rezistenta reported by User:Desiphral (Result: 24h (Re); 36h (De))

    Time reported: 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    I warned this user yesterday for 3rr, but instead the admin PeterSymonds blocked me only with 3 alleged reverts (one of them as explained in my motivation, was requested by Rezistenta, to add the sources that I already put in the talk page). I want also to bring to your attention that the Rezistenta has a history of vandalism and verbal violence (just to remind the last revert where he named me mad), that PeterSymonds supports him in an unjustified manner and that the initial move from Romani people to Roma people, as controversial as it may be, was done by another admin, Bogdangiusca, only with a fallacious reason, without discussing it first. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    Rezistenta (talk · contribs) and Desiphral (talk · contribs) have both been blocked, for twenty-four and thirty-six hours, respectively, for edit-warring on this article. -- tariqabjotu 12:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:AzureFury reported by User:Jaysweet (Result: 24 hours)

    Time reported: 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


    User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Frédérick Duhautpas (Result: 24 hours for both participants)

    Time reported: 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles reported by User:Protonk (Result: )

    Time reported: 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 15:27, 25 June 2008 This is the original WQA and has not been reverted to.


    Example

    == ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. {{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 
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:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic