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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:27, 25 March 2024 editGraywalls (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,590 edits →User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: )Tag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:38, 26 December 2024 edit undoDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators224,378 edits →User:Johnny test person reported by User:Aoidh (Result: ): blocked 24 hours 
Line 5: Line 5:
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 480 |counter = 490
|algo = old(2d) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f |key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude><!-- }}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: warned/stale) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|WikiLeaks}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Softlemonades}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PaleoFile}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' '''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# #
# #
# #
# #






'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' see ]


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />

Editor removed citations a couple of weeks ago; two editors opposed the removal on talk. Softlemonades today started edit warring to implement their earlier changes against that consensus. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 18:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

:The first edit was not a revert, I replaced self-published sources with RSes. It did not implement earlier changes. I did not {{tq|perform more than three reverts}}.
:See ] {{tq|Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.}}
:{{tq|Editor removed citations a couple of weeks ago; two editors opposed the removal on talk.}} The other editor did not object, they agreed they could be used '''before''' I brought up COPYLINK. And {{tq|] is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)}}.
:Cambial did not answer on Talk other than to say ] because my uestions were ]. I asked why the self-published sources were needed but no answer. I asked why linking to release page to stolen self published leaks didnt violate COPYLINK but no answer.
:Cambial has a history of edit warring on different pages and has been blocked from this page before ] (]) 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::Softlemonades claim that they {{tq|did not implement earlier changes}} is not correct. Their earlier edit was to remove several citations. They removed these same citations again in every later edit (including the first one), as the diffs readily demonstrate. Softlemonades repeated their arguments on talk numerous times in response to other editors. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Softlemonades repeated their arguments on talk numerous times in response to other editors.}} What other editors?
:::Asking you to explain your argument is not repeating mine. Not answering is ]
:::You just say {{tq|I see no copylink problem.}} but do not explain why linking to stolen self published material is not ] {{tq|However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders.}}
:::The page that indexes it is COPYLINK violation because it hosts the COPYVIO material. There is no need for sources that might be COPYLINK ] (]) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Your claims are inaccurate, but regardless, they have no bearing on and are not an excuse for your edit warring against the consensus view on talk. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 19:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Claiming that ] and ] do not involve third parties is inaccurate ] (]) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::While there is no violation for now, I'm not closing this as both of your third reverts were very recent as I type this, and we should see how this goes. Yes, there's a 2-1 consensus in favor of Softlem's position, but that's from an editor's ; they haven't otherwise participated in this very lively discussion. Since the article has been designated as being within a contentious topic, I think I would be within my rights to consider brief full protection on my own initiative, but I'm not going to go there yet as I think the best course of action for the two of you would be to get more editors involved and reach a stronger consensus (preferably through discussions on relevant noticeboards, not an RfC). ] (]) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|I would be within my rights to consider brief full protection on my own initiative}} Support this and making the page 1RR like ] ] (]) 13:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I ] ] (]) 22:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
{{od|6}}
Hi {{yo|Daniel Case}} The four reverts by Softlemonades - the exact same set of code removed by Softlemonades in the "Previous version" diff they then remove again in the four recent edits - breach the 3RR rule, no? What am I missing? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 20:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:The first diff you link to (the 13:17 one) does not appear to be a revert of another editor's recent preceding edit. It's the edit they were reverting to. The rule is more than three ''reverts'', not more than three of the same edit. ] (]) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::It's a revert of {{diff2|1210203715|this edit}}, which restored the citations after Softlemonades first removed them in the edit {{diff2|1210190340|indicated as previous version}} above. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 22:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
::Even if this were a case of four reverts, having reviewed some of the citations that were removed, there does appear to be a ]/] here, so ]#5 would apply. For example, the citation to ''Egads! Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages Disclosed'' is ''undeniably'' a copyvio of the by CBS News. I haven't reviewed all of the links, and some of it gets pretty complicated because the copyright of confidential government materials gets pretty complex in some jurisdictions. But it is plausible that other leaks, like the Syria Files or Stratfor emails are copyrighted. ] (]) 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
:::The 3RR exception #5 is for {{Teal|clear copyright violations}}, meaning use of copyrighted material in the article. There is no copyrighted material removed in Softlemonades edit-warred change. The exception is not for external links. There has been no copyrighted material put in the article, and no suggestion - except for an inaccurate claim from the edit warring user - that there is. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000">]— ]</span> 11:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Per ] {{tq|Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to.}} We are not permitted to link to material that knowingly violates copyright. We can no-more link to the WikiLeaks copy of ''Egads!'' than we can to a research paper on SciHub, a copy of a book on LibGen, or a copy of a movie, TV show, or video game on Pirate Bay. 3RRNO#5 covers removal of violating links in all of those situations. ] (]) 19:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}}I made unrelated revert on the page. I realized it might be 3RR so I tried to self revert, but Cambial corrected first ] (]) 13:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|Softlemonades}}, the ] is about "clear copyright violations", similar to the other exceptions that are for really clear cases. In a situation where the copyright issue <em>itself</em> is under dispute, the situation isn't clear enough for the exception to apply. You have been edit warring, and you'll need to find a consensus about this issue instead. Neither you nor {{u|Cambial Yellowing}} should be the person to assess or implement that consensus. I'm closing this as "warned/stale" as there have been no edits for two days, but if this continues, there will be page protections or blocks, and they won't be removed or avoided by 3RRNO#5. ] (]) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}} ] (]) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC) *Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
*{{AN3|s}} ] (]) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*:1.
*:2.
*:3.
*:4.
*:5.
*:6.
*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
*:Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) ] (]) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. ] (]) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's ]. ] | ] 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Cate Blanchett}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|83.51.42.63}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' {{diff|||1210981053}} '''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
# {{diff||1213377081|1213339267}}
#
# {{diff|||1213753511}}
#
# {{diff|||1213826444}}
#
# {{diff|||1214418378}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' {{diff|||1213763815}}


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' {{diff|||1215024511}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
{{AN3|s}} Last edits were four days ago. ] (]) 02:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Category:19th-century church buildings in Hong Kong}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|185.104.63.112}}


Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''


:The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? ] (]) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::@]
# {{diff2|1215053637|20:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]): It's equally disruptive to feed articles of dependent territories to categories of the metropolitan. Stop now."
::"This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand ] and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. ] • ] • ] 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1215051302|20:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]): To match similar categories of British overseas territories, overseas France, etc."
:::You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. ] (]) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. ] • ] • ] 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). , for those curious. ] (]) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1215053100|20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Notice: Adding incorrect categories on ]."
# {{diff2|1215055301|21:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
# This one is clearly from the same person. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}
# {{diff2|1215056130|21:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Categorization */ new section"
# {{diff2|1215058141|21:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Categories}} "/* Category request: Category:Legislators by dependent territories */ Reply"


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>

Also this one. It's clearly the same IP. . They've also gone over the dispute the renaming of a category and express their opposition to renaming/reparenting. And there has been discussion about this on ] ] (]) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
: {{xt|Adding incorrect categories}} Which exactly were the wrong categories ''added''?{{diff|diff=1215049765|oldid=1214496467}}{{diff|diff=1215053637|oldid=1214496467}} {{xt|Also this one. It's clearly the same IP.}} What? I didn't even know there was such an edit by someone else before you mentioned. ] (]) 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
<u>'''Counter-reporting'''</u>:

With this message I am filing to counter-report Smasongarrison for edit warring (just click "previous edit" in the diffs he/she quoted above to see his/her earlier edits).{{diff|diff=&title=Category:19th-century_church_buildings_in_Hong_Kong&action=history}}{{diff|diff=1214911136|oldid=1214651176}}{{diff|diff=1215049765|oldid=1215046505}}{{diff|diff=1215052850|oldid=1215051302}} He/she forces his/her way to disregard the preexisting consensus that items of dependent territories don't get fed straight into categories for the metropolitan states and refuses to back down. ] (]) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
*I've blocked the IP for 3 months as a proxy.--] (]) 22:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks, Bbb23. (And for the record, my pronouns are she or they. None of this he/she nonsense.) ] (]) 22:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
*::@] I think that it's the same person who is now posting on my user page. ] ] (]) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Catherine, Princess of Wales}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|36.73.126.53}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# #
# #
# #
# # (second IP)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ,


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


] (]) 21:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

:'''Comment:''' . ] (]) 21:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
*Blocked for 31h by {{U|Amortias}}.--] (]) 22:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sino-Vietnamese War}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|118.211.170.85}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''

'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not participate in reverts. Warned first IP on their own talk page


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a stating {{tq|I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here.}}, and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. {{userlinks|CipherRephic}} was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop after being warned and has not broken 3RR. ] | ] 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
Three IPs () all from the same location and likely the same person edit warring over war results at ] Hist: . suggests unwillingness to compromise, adhere to ], and here to POVPUSH: . ] (]) 06:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}} for three months by {{noping|El C}}. ] (]) 19:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Marc Benioff}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Black magic}} <br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|99.98.190.59}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ramirami60}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''

'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
#
#
#
#

'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
The information attempting to be added is conspiracy gibberish sourced to a YouTube video and personal opinions (claiming "censorship on such discussions by the very influential Jewish lobby groups".) It is borderline antisemitic and doesn't belong in the article. ] (]) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

:thaddeussholto is spreading complete lies about info I have added. I have cited on yt among 4-5 others some are peer reviewed. the yt video is published by a renounced jewish scholar and Rabbi and I have also refrences his organisation's link to show it's not just some random vid on yt by a non scholar. all other citations are accurate and come from jewush and or kabballah and or freemason scholars and or officials, but the reporter is too lazy to read them as they are long, so they resort to yelling "antisemitism", which is ironic as my info specifically talks about such censorship and the harms to Jewish people it poses. ] (]) 17:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

They reverted it again but this time added another source that doesn't support any of this. The new edit used for the claim "The view by freemasons themselves that Kabballah is the root of freemasonry" when that source itself explicitly says "any historical links are strictly conjectural and unsupported." None of this belongs in the article and they continue to edit war it in regardless. ] (]) 17:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 18:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Agnostic_atheism}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TheWiseJames}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' '''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1265027253|18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1215245335|23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Corrected and updated."
# {{diff2|1265009969|16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1215245045|23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Updated and Correct after correction being removed. Do not remove correct facts and information from Misplaced Pages regarding the subject matter in question."
# {{diff2|1264902002|03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1215230495|22:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)}} "I updated information missing that is relevant to the subject matter in question."
# {{diff2|1264865734|23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1215245366|23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on ]." # {{diff2|1265024674|18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
# {{diff2|1265033023|18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1265024924|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"



<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
Requested user discuss concerns on talk page, rather than continuing to add information. ] (]) 23:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

:Additional edits added - ] ] (]) 23:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked as ] by {{U|Discospinster}}.--] (]) 00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Puberty blocker}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|XeCyranium}}

'''Previous version reverted to:''' <s></s>

'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# (note: added afterwards at 04:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC), one below was the original #1) , reverting a clause highlighting American medical orgs in the lead
# , reverting a different clause in a different part of the article
# , reverting the same clause highlighting American medical orgs in the lead
# , reverting the same clause highlighting American medical orgs in the lead

'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Even though this is only three reverts, not four, it is on a page for a contentious topic that's seen a lot of editing recently. (Also I should note: I also made three reverts in this time, but self-reverted the last one and came here when I realized it was the third revert.) ] (]) 01:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:I feel I should point out I self-reverted the change to the lead as seen here: and started a talk page discussion regarding the change here: . Aside from that I was under the impression that reverts were measured over the course of a day, not over the course of three. I don't plan on reverting the article again, and as can be seen here: I've been looking for sources for others to reinsert the content I removed in the first place. I realize that a series of reverts over several days can be seen as "gaming the system" to enforce my preferred view, but the only edit which I have repeatedly restored my own version of over multiple days is this one here: , an edit which I assumed correctly had been reverted by mistake, as I was told here: . My apologies if I'm replying in the wrong field. ] (]) 02:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:This seems like something that should be resolved with an RfC; XeCyranium reverted a recent ] addition, and a minor edit war began over whether it should be included or not - all parties were in the wrong, but generally the editor who is editing against the status quo should be the one to initiate dispute resolution once talk page discussion hasn't lead to a clear conclusion. ] (]) 02:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::<s>What ] addition are you talking about?</s> While the article text has definitely been contested recently, the stuff XeCyranium reverted has been in the article for a while, as far as I can tell. , and you can also see that although the wording is slightly different there's still basically the same information about the Finnish Ministry starting with "Nevertheless" instead of "On the other hand".
::I also realized that I'm missing a diff above and there actually ''were'' four diffs: to the first one above is also a revert by XeCyranium, albeit to a different part of the article. ] (]) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:: Alright, now I do realize what you're talking about. While the changes to the lead are the main thing being reverted here they're not the ''only'' thing, and some of the things reverted in the process of this war were pretty long-standing. See above. ] (]) 04:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:::{{AN3|noex}} As noted above. Since discussion on the talk page has remained commendably civil and collegial, I concur with the suggestion above that an RfC might be the best move. ] (]) 18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one month) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Helvíkovice}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|167.98.155.153}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''

] is a logged-out editor on a crusade against articles on villages having historical population figures. Similar behaviour can be seen in the of ].

'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# reverted addition of population table and other improvements by FromCzech
# reverted FromCzech
# reverted FromCzech
# reverted Toddy1

'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*That is not an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, is it? Why be so transparently dishonest? ] (]) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*The reporting user appears to simply hate IP addresses. They have nothing to do with the article, have no apparent prior interest in it, have not made any attempt to discuss its content, nor even elucidated any actual objection to my edit. The situation was caused by one particular user ("FromCzech") who squats on all Czech town and village articles, reverting any edits they do not like and making to boot. The reporting user evidently did not like my seeking a consensus about the issues I was concerned with; their comments about "logged-out editor" reveal the motivation behind this bad-faith effort to get me blocked. ] (]) 16:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*Also note the hyperbolic attacks by the reporting user. "Crusade"? I edited two articles. The user "FromCzech" ''is'' on a crusade, to make all Czech town and village articles contravene style and content guidelines. They revert all edits they don't like and clearly believe that they ] the subject area. But their harmful reverting is fine by the reporting user, because it's IP addresses they have a problem with, not the undoing of edits. ] (]) 16:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*Blocked 167.98.155.0/24 for one month.--] (]) 17:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada}} '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dune: Part Two}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Cinosaur}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' '''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1265161751|12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1215370967|19:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Thank you for your suggested improvements of the lead. Could you please introduce them in the actual text of the lead rather than asking for it to be worked on in sandbox"
# {{diff2|1265079289|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1215368293|18:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please present evidence on the Talk page that the reverted addition is indeed "fan-craft" before reverting it."
# {{diff2|1265038799|19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1215365310|18:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please refrain from reverting edits backed up by ]s. Take to the Talk page and let's reach consensus there whether or not the update is improvement"
# {{diff2|1264974672|12:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1215360950|17:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discuss on the Talkpage. These are statements by officials, backed up by ]"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1265079184|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."

# {{diff2|1265080757|00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1215369535|18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Expanded and updated */ re" # {{diff2|1265080353|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>


User continues edit warring and doesn't discuss edits even after having been requested to, not even explaining their reversions in their edit summary. ] (]) 13:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Keeps pushing a ''166 thousand'' characters addition. Three reverts already passed. ]. ] 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|ChasePlowman2014}} is completely unresponsive. I hope they try editing during the 2 weeks of their block and notice that they have a talk page. ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
**Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the ] explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
**:{{u|Jasca Ducato}}, this isn't about the time taken to respond to the noticeboard report. {{u|ChasePlowman2014}} isn't using edit summaries nor talk pages and ignores warnings on their talk page about their behavior. ] (]) 04:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
:Thank you for the notice, @]. My concern with and reverts is that they were based on claims unsupported by reliable sources or Wp guidelines that 1) the subject is highly controversial, 2) the new addition was "fancruft", and that 3) the lead was not according to ]. As for the single edit expansion, this is how in the past I improved two closely related articles on (+44318 bytes) and (+64138 bytes), both accepted at that time by the community as improvements of the articles' encyclopedic value. In this case, too, was carefully written on the basis of most available scholarly resources and in strict accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. My humble request is, rather than rejecting it offhand and giving it short shrift, please deal with the proposed text in its face value and help improve it. Thanks. Regards, ] (]) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::Why does it take a edit warring notice for you to stop edit warring? You've been here for quite some time and have thousands of edits to your name. Right now, there is clear consensus that what you are trying to add is not okay. Like I said on your talk page, I am not going to do you work you. Again, it is over ''166 thousand'' of characters you added. That is ''huge''. There is no ] so just work on it on your sandbox. ]. ] 19:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
:::It has already been worked on in the sandbox. The objections you raised about the lead and infobox neither complied with ] nor warranted revisions of the encyclopedic value the expansion added to the article. Please ] and do not ] edits that actually ]. Thanks, ] (]) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Why are you ? How is this not getting through to you? People disagree with your revision. Stop this immediately. ]. ] 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ] (]) 20:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Callmehelper}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Siege Of Dhurma (1818)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Araboud}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# #
# #
# #
# #


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
There seems to be a page move war happening too. I moved it back to ] as I think that was the original article name. Please revert if I am mistaken. ] (]) 22:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 22:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Pages:''' See below <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Graywalls}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on ]. ] (]) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:It's me @].
:'''Clarification by my side ; '''
:Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.
:* ''Disputes details'' ;
:# Firstly , I edit ] check history of that page from to
:#''' process of reverting by others and my responses'''
:** then and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes ] then i thought matter would be solved.
:*But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement and my response of revert and discussion on his talk page ]
:Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there
:Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk ] but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on ]
:So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.
:the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under ] or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.
:so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .
:'''Conclusion'''
:So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.
:Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.
:i left a discussion on ] page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources ].
:I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.
:
:I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.
:Much Regards. ] (]) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{AN3|d}} Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. ] (]) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
A few days ago, ] started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Angelo Rules}} <br />
*{{la|White Stag Leadership Development Program}} - ]
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnny test person}}
*{{la|Béla H. Bánáthy}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content
*{{la|Boy Scouts of America}} - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page
*{{la|COPE (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
*{{la|Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion
*{{la|National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
*{{la|Philmont Training Center}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
*{{la|Scouting}} - unhelpful editing


'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, ], and moved the discussion to: ].


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


*] - tagging the article with multiple tags
*] - ]
*] - tagging the article with multiple tags
*] - tagging the article with multiple tags
*] - tagging the article with multiple tags
*] - tagging the article with multiple tags


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
Did I catch it all? I'm not sure I did, It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:], here ], and then there is this . I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] and ]


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd like something to be done to make this all stop an allow for a more civil way to deal with this. I myself am travelling right now, and don't have easy access to a computer, so I don't expect to be available again until next week. The following users may be able to help:{{ping|Jergen|btphelps|North8000|erp}}
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Once I realized one user was inserting much of primary source personal website (whitestag.org), I removed them based on not being based on reliable sources. The ones I re-directed as I did not find it merited stand alone article, I put them threw AfD to seek consensus for re-direct. I believe that's a pretty typical procedure when re-direct is objected and a proper way to do so rather than repeatedly creating re-direct. ] (]) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:38, 26 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

    User:PaleoFile reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Warned users)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Napoleonjosephine2020 reported by User:Kline (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Lindy Li (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Zilch.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments:

    Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. Kline • talk • contribs 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Napoleonjosephine2020
    "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. Kline • talk • contribs 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. Kline • talk • contribs 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). Here’s the exchange, for those curious. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C and User:2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Page already protected)

    Page: Warburg effect (oncology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    4. (second IP)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not participate in reverts. Warned first IP on their own talk page

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments:
    I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a talk page comment stating I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here., and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. CipherRephic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop after being warned and has not broken 3RR. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:99.98.190.59 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Marc Benioff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 99.98.190.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265024592 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
    2. 16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1264902249 by Augmented Seventh (talk)"
    3. 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1264868382 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
    4. 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1264776552 by Zachomatic (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Marc Benioff."
    2. 18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"

    Comments:

    User:ChasePlowman2014 reported by User:Happily888 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Dune: Part Two (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: ChasePlowman2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
    2. 00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"

    Comments:

    User continues edit warring and doesn't discuss edits even after having been requested to, not even explaining their reversions in their edit summary. Happily888 (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    ChasePlowman2014 is completely unresponsive. I hope they try editing during the 2 weeks of their block and notice that they have a talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the Dune: Part Two talk page explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
        Jasca Ducato, this isn't about the time taken to respond to the noticeboard report. ChasePlowman2014 isn't using edit summaries nor talk pages and ignores warnings on their talk page about their behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Callmehelper reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: Declined)

    Page: Ambedkar Jayanti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Callmehelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:20, 26 December 2024
    2. 17:41, 24 December 2024
    3. 00:25, 22 December 2024
    4. 17:57, 21 December 2024



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

    Comments:
    Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on B. R. Ambedkar. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's me @Callmehelper.
    Clarification by my side ;
    Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.
    • Disputes details ;
    1. Firstly , I edit Ambedkar Jayanti check history of that page from here to final version
    2. process of reverting by others and my responses
    • But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement see and my response of revert here and discussion on his talk page here
    Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there see
    Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk here but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Request_for_Administrator Review_of_Recent_Edits_on_Dr. B.R._Ambedkar's_Page
    So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.
    the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under WP:UNDUE or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.
    so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .
    Conclusion
    So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.
    Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.
    i left a discussion on Ambedkar Jayanti page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources look.
    I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.
    I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.
    Much Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Declined Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Johnny test person reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Page: Angelo Rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Johnny test person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:34, December 26, 2024
    2. 18:40, December 26, 2024
    3. 19:05, December 26, 2024
    4. 19:31, December 26, 2024


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1265395592

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Aoidh#Angelo Rules and Talk:Angelo Rules#Unsourced character biography section

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1265406607

    Comments:
    Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - Aoidh (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: