Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:22, 30 September 2008 editTiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 edits →130.127.230.139 reported by TonyTheTiger (Result: ): blocked← Previous edit Revision as of 01:10, 1 October 2008 edit undoSoundvisions1 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers10,256 edits →User:Duffbeerforme reported by Soundvisions1 (talk) (Result: No Action )Next edit →
Line 452: Line 452:
] (]) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|nv}} You should try some form of dispute resolution, or start an ] topic, but there isn't call for a 3RR block at this point.--]] ] 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) :{{AN3|nv}} You should try some form of dispute resolution, or start an ] topic, but there isn't call for a 3RR block at this point.--]] ] 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::Will do. If ] deletes the same items again I will for sure open a ] topic. ] (]) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] == == ] reported by ] ==

Revision as of 01:10, 1 October 2008

Template:Moveprotected

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Violations

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


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

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

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    59.167.51.83, 59.167.56.223, and 59.167.37.230 reported by Wronkiew (Result: No action)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    In each case the article was tagged with the equivalent of {{Synthesis}}. User is aware of 3RR, see , also I attempted to resolve issues on one of the talk pages. Technically 4 reverts in 24 hours and 52 minutes. 59.167.37.230 is not listed in the diffs but made similar edits to the same page in the past two days. Wronkiew (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

    Also requested semi-protection for the article at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Wronkiew (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

      • The problem is that the guy just tags the article without identifying where in the article there is a problem. If he wants to be so proactive, he should sign in and participate in the discussion about the article.2008Olympian chitchat 02:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the inconvenience if this incident was not severe enough to be reported here. It looked like the people trying to improve the page were having trouble because of edit warring by anonymous users. I would appreciate feedback on how to better resolve problems like this should it come up again. Wronkiew (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wassimsaade reported by McKhan (talk) (Result: Wassimsaade has virtually no history other than reverts, blocked indef)

    Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wassimsaade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    1. 20:57, 22 September 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 18:51, 23 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 240393838 by McKhan (talk)")
    3. 16:40, 26 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 240594454 by McKhan (talk) Al Ahbash praise al-salaf . They are pro-salafi and anti-Wahhabi.")
    4. 16:52, 26 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241157248 by Wassimsaade (talk)")
    5. 21:00, 26 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241160241 by McKhan (talk) Please read what al ahbash have to say about their respect for salaf on their web site.")
    6. 21:03, 26 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241159895 by McKhan (talk) Check the aicp.org website.")
    7. 23:36, 26 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241220445 by McKhan (talk)")
    8. 23:37, 26 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241220445 by McKhan (talk)")
    9. 23:40, 26 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241231967 by Straight Edge PXK (talk)")
    10. 23:43, 26 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241232772 by Straight Edge PXK (talk)")
    11. 02:49, 27 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241251418 by McKhan (talk)")
    12. 03:00, 27 September 2008 (edit summary: "I'm not changing . I'm adding content with references. It is only fair to give the readers access to all different opinions not only the Wahhabi's opinions.")
    13. 11:00, 27 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241277970 by McKhan (talk) It is not out of context. Please stop deleting content.")
    14. 17:55, 27 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241351610 by 203.99.175.92 (talk) Please stop this vandalism.")
    15. 18:29, 27 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241363815 by 203.99.173.58 (talk) Please talk or stop this vandalism.")
    16. 18:47, 27 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241370142 by 203.99.173.58 (talk) Vandalism revert to NPOV")
    17. 18:52, 27 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241371066 by 203.99.173.58 (talk) revert vandalism")
    18. 19:06, 27 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241373451 by 203.99.173.58 (talk) This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
      The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to PageName, you will be blocked from editing. McKhan (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC) (last warning for removing content)")
    19. 19:14, 27 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241374320 by 203.99.173.58 (talk) revert vandalism from IP address 203.99.173.58")

    McKhan (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Koki93 reported by Bonadea (talk) (Result: Not yet)

    Keito Okamoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Koki93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 22:19, 26 September 2008
    2. 22:29, 26 September 2008
    3. 13:10, 27 September 2008
    4. 17:04, 27 September 2008
    • Diff of warning: here

    The user has not responded to any of the messages on their talk page, and has not justified the re-adding of deleted content in edit summaries. This, to me, indicates that they don't understand why the content is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages and aren't intrested in engaging in any discussion about it.

    —Bonadea (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Some of those look like self-reverts, please persist in trying to get through to this user, remember their first language may not be English. You have the opportunity here to help them learn and be guided by our principles, I encourage you to do that and help them avoid further problems. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Collounsbury reported by User:Koavf (talk) (Result: Both parties in the wrong, both blocked 24 hours)

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

    1. 16:26, 27 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "RV POV and consensus breaking edits by KOAVF.")
    2. 17:11, 27 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "RV Koaf edit war, user's 5th Revert without addressing objections to his unilateral editing.")
    3. 17:21, 27 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "RV Koavf 7th RV against discussion on talk.")
    4. 19:34, 27 September 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "RV Koavf edit warring.")

    Collounsbury and I have butted heads before and this time, he has been just as belligerent to me as before. Posting on Talk:Morocco today, he has written (emphasis in original):

    Your POV is partisan and extreme, and your editing remains dishonest and fucking pig headed
    Your faux politeness I have no fucking use for as I see nothing polite in your bloody sleath edit warring year after fucking, ignoring consensus blundering in. As for Golan, they expelled the fucking population you git.

    These posted prior to his last two reverts. I informed him that his reverts were deleting an interwiki link and asked him to please stop doing it on the talk and in my edit summary, but he keeps on ignoring this and deleting it anyway. I also honestly don't understand his edit summaries and how I go immediately from fifth to seventh reverts (?) and why he insists that I am reverting "without addressing objections to unilateral editing," when I am posting on talk and actually made a compromise version rather than revert to what I had originally intended.

    Bearing all of this in mind, I believe that Collounsbury is editing in bad faith and being uncivil in addition to breaking 3RR. ——Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kossack4Truth reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 4 days)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • -- revert: Removed paragraph
    • 1st revert: Same
    • 2nd revert: Same
    • 3rd revert: Readded a deleted paragraph
    • 4th revert: Removed a cited and important, though in his opinion biased, fact.
    • 5th revert: Same


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Kossack4Truth has a history of tendentious editing, resulting in a topic ban from Barack Obama-related articles (see ). According to and he is banned from all 2008 election-related articles as well. He edit warred to include things at Obama, and he's edit warring now to keep things out at Palin. Grsz 00:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 4 days 3RR violation at Sarah Palin, plus a violation of his topic ban from all 2008 election-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


    User:Antiedman reported by User:Lova Falk (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I gave the warning before Antiedman made his fourth revert.--Lova Falk (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    I feel sorry for Antiedman because the rules that are most important are not (clear cut) easily understood. so maybe those obviously Important rules should be made in language that is more understandable to everybody not just for people who take the time to dissect them--65.35.113.170 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    Yellow Evan reported by SandyGeorgia (Result: 72 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Also, another warning earlier this month:

    Yellow Evan removed the bolding on the template three times, and then removed the TfD. In the interim, 141.157.170.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also removed the bolding twice, so there's good evidence here for extended edit warring and a checkuser. There is talk page consensus that the bolding breaches MoS, and only Yellow Evan and the IP have restored it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    Xinunus reported by PatrickFlaherty (Result: 72h)

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

    --Patrick (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked, three days. east718 // talk // email // 23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Pakhtunking reported by User:Scythian77 (Result: indef)

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

    The Scythian 22:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    The request is made by a sockpuppet of another user, most likely User:Beh-nam. He is constantly vandalising Pashtun people article and I try to revert his vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhtunking (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

    No, I only wish to add more photographs of Pashtun women to the article, which it currently lacks. I do not understand your aggressive behavior in this matter. I am more than willing to discuss this matter on either of our talk pages, or the articles discussion page. The Scythian 22:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    Pakhtunking is a sockpuppet of NisarKand and has been blocked. east718 // talk // email // 23:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


    Nirvana888 and Deavenger reported by Goingoveredge (Result:No action taken, users warned)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert: by Nirvana888, 13:41, 28 September 2008
    • 2nd revert: by Nirvana888, 22:12, 28 September 2008
    • 3rd revert: by Nirvana888, 22:51, 28 September 2008
    • 4th revert: by Canvassed meatpuppet Deavenger, 23:25. 28 September 2008


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    The edit-warring by the two users reported here has taken place in tandem, as I will now proceed to prove by a timeline of events.

    • 1st revert takes place here at 13:41, 28 September 2008 by Nirvana888
    • 2nd revert takes place here at 22:12, 28 September 2008 by Nirvana888
    • I warn Nirvana888 here that he is on route to violate 3rr at 22:31, 28 September 2008
    • 3rd revert takes place here at 22:51, 28 September 2008
    • Nirvana888, realizing that he can't revert anymore for the day, executes a "call to arms" to ideological meatpuppets Deavenger here at time 23:36 on this date and User:Hobie Hunter here at time 23:01, 28 September 2008.
    • They then proceed to intimidate me with incivil posts and combative rhetoric here.
    • The 4th revert is executed by deavenger at time 23:25, AFTER Nirvana888's transparent Canvassing here

    Thus, it is established that Nirvana888 and Deavenger have been edit-warring in tandem and, for the purposes of this case, may be treated as one editor executing 4 reverts in violation of 3rr.Goingoveredge (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    You have no two legs to stand on Goingoveredge and you know it. Deavenger can absolutely attest to the fact that I did not canvass him. He had only read a message I posted on User:Hobie Hunter's Talk page asking him to keep an eye on further disruptive edits and was drawn to the article. It is I who should be reporting you for disruptive editing despite repeated attempts to get you to build consensus. You have a recent history of egregious edit warring/POV pushing and have been blocked 3 times by my count. Deavenger and I have not been blocked once before and have been asked you to build consensus before making unilateral changes. You have also broken 3RR by reverting parts of the section at least 4 times. Also, please get your facts straight, Deavenger reverted to consensus BEFORE I left a message on his Talk page asking that he keep an eye on you too. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    Notice that the user, Norvana888, continues his combative and incivil posture, relying on ad-hominen attacks and mud-slinging to bolster his position. He believes that the admin studying this section will be impressed or intimidated by his aggressive and verbose pontificating and his usage of quaint idioms like "no two legs to stand on" or whatever, and proceed, in mortified awe, to side with him. The other tactic used by the meatpuppets is the logical fallacy of "Sins of our fathers", pointing to earlier cases that have no relation to this one. In addition, he believes that testimony from the accused, without backed by third party verification, can refute the case against him (also a logical fallacy). Despite that, the facts of this case stand on their own ground. The timeline clearly establishes that the two users have engaged in a rather transparent attempt at meatpuppetry. More cautious meatpuppets typically canvass off wiki through email or instant messaging, but the brazen impertinence and arrogance of these users is so strong that they believe that they have wikipedia admins wrapped around their finger and thus, can blithely violate every rule on wikipedia and get away with it scot-free. Let's hope, by the grace of God, that they are wrong, or else wikipedia is doomed.Their accusing me of violating wp rules is a bit like a criminal frantically crying "thief" in order to deflect attention away from his shenanigans. Goingoveredge (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny with your last reply. I will assuming that you are not making light of the situation in which case I think you should probably reread Canvassing before accusing others. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    Here is the relevant part:
    “ Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion (in this case, edit-warring on Potential superpower). Under certain conditions (not these ones) it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion (which is what heppened here) compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive...Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent (clearly the case here, as Nirvana888's statements above indicate). While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. ”

    Goingoveredge (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    Whoo, this is going to be fun... first of all, Goingoveredge, you reverted well over 5 times on one day here. What's up, dude? Have those three blocks not done anything? Please, don't edit war. I'm not going to block you this time, but other admins aren't nearly as easy-going.
    Now, Nirvana888: You shouldn't be canvassing, either. It would be acceptable if you were, say, telling editors to watch for a vandal, but this is a content dispute. It would be a much better option to seek a WP:3O or WP:RFC than go around asking people to revert an editor because you can't. And let's leave Goingoveredge's history alone here; focus on the now.
    All in all, I have a suggestion; stop attacking how you present yourselves and instead focus on the issue. You have an impressive vocabulary, but writing an essay on how these two are only attacking you and not your argument is a bit hypocritical. Don't build your cases against each other, but build them against each others' arguments instead so that you can fix this issue.
    Oh, and if you keep edit warring I'm locking the article. But you guys won't start that up again, right? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 02:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for your advice Master of Puppets. I must admit I could have been more cool towards Goingoveredge but he did not seem to heed any warning whatsoever to discuss first or build consensus. That said, I just want to clarify that I DID NOT convass anyone to revert edits by Goingoveredge. I asked them to keep an eye should further disruptive edits occur after which I would have asked for "intervention" as you wisely recommended through WP:3O or WP:RFC. Hope that clarifies. Nirvana888 (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for your mediation, master of puppets. I agree with your stance and would request you mediate any disputes over this article that may arise.Goingoveredge (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    You may have had good intentions, but people are very twitchy around here sometimes, so be a bit more mindful of that in the future. Anyway, I guess this is resolved; all we need is Goingoveredge's acceptance of these terms. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    I was actually about to ban Goingoveredge for disruptive edit warring and abuse of process.--Tznkai (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    As I would like to point out to the Admins, one I didn't break the 3RR rule, as I only reverted his edits twice. 2, me and Nirvana and Hobie work on the same project of Power in International relations. Recently, we've been having trouble with users on the Potential Superpowers and Superpowers page, who all tried to add in new sources that would not be considered reliable for Power in International Relations project articles. When Nirvana informed me and Hobie, we said that we shall be keeping an eye on Goingoveredge. In fact, I told Nirvana that me and Hobie would check the sources Goingoveredge was posting to see if they were reliable, as Nirvana had some concerns of that they were more about India being an economic superpower instead of a potential superpower. I told Nirvana that I would check the sources to see if they were reliable sources related to the article, as the author was a reliable person in Political science. We never said that we would work together to get Goingoveredge blocked or banned. We were worried that this could turn into an edit war when one user was going against the members of Power in International relations. However, we promised no action against goingoveredge except that we would keep an eye on him, to see if any action would need to be taken. As Nirvana said, the first time I reverted Going's edits was before he left a message on my talk page. As the majority of my edits fall under the Potential Superpower article and it's talk page, and I keep a watch on the majority of the pages that fall under the Power in International Relations, mostly the Great Power, Superpower, and Potential Superpower pages. Me and Nirvana or Hobie aren't friends, we aren't homies. We don't exchange our email addresses or IM to talk to each other. We're members of the same project, and work together to make the articles better, and hopefully get our articles to become Featured Articles. We work together to help improve the articles, and we contact each other when we feel that other users might start causing edit wars, or add POV or unreliable sources. Now, that's all I'm going to say on this subject. The admins have access to mine, Nirvana, and Going's contributions, and they can make the descision. Deavenger (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    My apologies to the Admins, I've been writing this for a while before I noticed that Master of Puppets had taken action. My apologies. Deavenger (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    Don't worry about it. If, in the future, you have an issue with another user, please don't hesitate to contact an administrator (as I said, WP:3O is a great place) with your concerns; as you can see, dealing with it this way makes things a bit more complex. Oh, and if anyone has any more questions or so, please don't hesitate to direct them to my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    Though the case is already decided, I'd like to add a further note. A recent ANI discussion mentions Goingoveredge, though not this particular article. Since this editor has been blocked three times for edit warring in the past month, I recommend that he slow down on the reverts for a while. Somebody like Goingoveredge who has strong views about the content of Potential superpowers would do well to participate on its Talk page, something he has yet to do. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    The point here is that the two editors clearly think that they Own the articles and are willing to engage in Disrupting the addition of peer-reviewed sources in order to make a point. If they have issues with the sources cited, making this a content dispute, then they should raise it in the talk page instead of blanket-reverting to the version that puts undue weight on the self-published sources they cite. If they wish to discuss civilly each source and point then I am more than happy to participate in discussion.Goingoveredge (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    Great! :) Thanks for being reasonable, everyone. Hopefully the talk page bears fruit for this issue. If any mediation is needed, I'd be glad to come by. Happy editing, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 03:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    88.109.250.126 reported by The Rogue Penguin (Result: Protected)

    The user is continually inserting his original research into the article. I have warned him with the standard templates to level 2, explained why he cannot add original research, and asked him to stop repeatedly. As far as he's concerned, it's trolling and vandalism to revert him. Warnings are likewise blanked. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected The IP has gone over 3RR, but there's not much point in blocking a single-purpose account that has existed for just one day. I'm semi-protecting the article for one week, hoping to reduce the edit war. It appears that many IPs who don't participate on Talk are adding unsourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    75.168.221.28 reported by XF Law (Result:24-hour block)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Can you look at User:75.168.218.128 as well? Same 3RR on the exact same reversion. Similar IP as well. Thanks. talk at me 06:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:75.168.218.128 was blocked by another administrator; I gave User:75.168.221.28 a 24-hour block. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 22:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    Littledoggy26 reported by DAJF (Result:48 hour block)

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    I can't determine whether the user genuinely believes his edits are justified - despite being advised otherwise - or whether this is just willful vandalism. I am therefore reluctant to make any more reverts myself and risk accusations of edit-warring. (DAJF (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

    Sadly, he hasn't communicated with anyone so I'm hard-pressed to say he has good intentions. The spinning of in-page warnings is an issue, as well. I'll hand out a two day block and we'll see what happens. Thanks for reporting this, you did the right thing. And you get special praise for remaining calm through it! :D Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:99.224.42.232 reported by Emarsee (Result: 24 hrs)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User keeps on adding links to the Canadian television system's that broadcasts that show's website for that show for Private Practice, Two and a Half Men, and Mad Men and Fringe (TV series) Emarsee 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

    User made 5th revert here Emarsee 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    JJJ999 reported by Girolamo Savonarola (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:06, 30 September 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. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    User:Duffbeerforme reported by Soundvisions1 (talk) (Result: No Action )

    List of all-female bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Duffbeerforme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 09:26, 24 September 2008 (edit summary: "remove some non notable")
    2. 09:41, 24 September 2008 (edit summary: "B")
    3. 11:19, 25 September 2008 (edit summary: "remove nn, fix links")
    4. 08:56, 29 September 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 241217003 by Soundvisions1 (talk)")
    5. 09:46, 30 September 2008 (edit summary: "remove readded")

    This is borderline 3RR because of the time span, however based on the current 2 reverts in 24 hours combined with the first edits and reverts along with lack of full discussion before making changes I can foresee this becoming an issue. I started a talk page topic on September 1, 2008 named Bands on this list should be notable or canonical examples of an all- (RE: Garik11) to address some issues. User:Duffbeerforme did not join into the discussion prior to making deletions and I started a subsection on called "/RE: Duffbeerforme/" on September 26 to address their deletions. He did not reply until September 29, but he made the same deletions again without discussing. I again replied and reverted pending further discussion and awoke to find the same deletions made. After this mornings reverts I updated the subheaders on the talk page to better reflect the topic "This Lists Subject specific Notability Guidelines" with a subsection called "Changing the lead section (Male Member inclusion)". Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    No violation You should try some form of dispute resolution, or start an AN/I topic, but there isn't call for a 3RR block at this point.--KojiDude 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    Will do. If User:Duffbeerforme deletes the same items again I will for sure open a AN/I topic. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

    67.79.157.50 reported by AdjustShift


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    IP 67.79.157.50 was warned not to revert edits without discussing with fellow editors, but the IP reverted without discussion. Please see User talk:67.79.157.50. AdjustShift (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    130.127.230.139 reported by TonyTheTiger (Result: 31 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: link



    • Diff of 3RR warning: link

    3-RR warining in edit summary of diff above. Many requests for talk page debate in diffs ignored. Article is so newly promoted it is still at Misplaced Pages:Good articles/recent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

    Categories: