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 22:34, 30 July 2007 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:Blocked, 10 hours): blocked, 10 hours← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:00, 24 December 2024 edit undoZimZalaBim (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers47,169 edits Adding new report for 99.98.190.59.Tag: Twinkle 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move|small=yes}}</noinclude>
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]

{{pp-move|small=yes}}
<noinclude><center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.<br/>Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.'''</center>
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Archive%(counter)d
|counter = 51
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 490
|algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude> }}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
]
==Violations==
Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.

===] reported by ] (Result: 24 Hours - per by ])===
*] violation on
{{Article|Stargate_SG-1}}. {{3RRV|Robinepowell}}: Time reported: 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: Something a long way back, this edit war has been going on for some time. These are the most recent reverts:

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

This user has repeated replaced "Vancouver, Canada" with "Vancouver, British Columbia" despite multiple users reverting and requesting discussion. --] 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 48 hours)===
*] violation on {{Article|Ben 10}}

*I added a minor edit to a section title, making it easier to find information contained within a sub-page in ]. ] has continually reverted it to what he has decided is 'correct' without getting any other reader's feedback. He then threatened me twice, which is shown on my IP address user page. I responded to his threats saying that I was making a usability change and that he was not the sole editor of the entry. If you look through the entry's history you'll see that ] has reverted many, many people's entries whenever he doesn't like them. {{IPuser|66.92.74.246}} 07:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Note:''' Please show diffs. ] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 08:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Note:''' This is for 3RR violations only, for simple vandalism complants, please go to ]. ] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 08:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Note:''' The "Threats" mentioned by the IP are UW warning templates. ] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 08:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Note:''' {{3RRV|Someguy0830}} was issued a 3RR warning: . ] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 08:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
::*'''Blocked''' &ndash; {{3RRV|Someguy0830}} has been blocked for 2 days for a serious, second-time breach of the ]. This was partly due to the information given here; however, in future please fill out a request here as directed at the bottom of the page, or your report may be ignored ~ ] 13:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:::*Please see also the reverse - the IP's broken the rule and properly warned too. (See ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
::::*The page has been fully-], pending ] (which will now be advised for both the IP and account) ~ ] 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::*'''Blocked''' &ndash; the IP has been blocked for 10 hours, for a ] violation ~ ] 18:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Monarchy in Canada}}. {{3RRV|G2bambino}}: Time reported: 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: in first two reverts. Otherwise, see the individual reverts.

*1st revert: , to 18:47, 27 July
*2nd revert: , to 18:47, 27 July (then a consecutive edit, 12:55, 28 July)
*3rd revert: , to (then further consecutive edits to 17:01)
*4th revert: , to (then further consecutive edits to 17:22)
*5th revert: (well after this report was first made, and notice of it )

**'''Note:''' {{3RRV|G2bambino}} was not issued a 3RR warning, only informed that he was reported. ] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
***'''Note''' The other users (] and ]) were performing direct, unreasoned, undiscussed, and abbrasive reverts of mostly long-standing material, lacking any demonstration of cooperation. In the meantime I have tried to address JDM's concerns after he finally provided some reasoning at ]. Lonewolf, I suspect, has been attempting to entrap me in a 3RR breach. Anyway, I'll consider this the warning that was never placed on my talk. --] 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
***Only new users have to be warned. Experienced users are expected to know the rules. --] 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
***Indeed. A user that has been blocked less than 2 weeks ago for ] should know the rules.--] 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
****Well, I hope the complexity of this matter will be taken into consideration; ie. each and every edit by all three parties involved. I hope it will then be seen that I was indeed working to protect the content from mostly counter-policy, unexplained, tag-team reverts, and after each of my own reverts immediately worked properly, unlike the other users' blatant deletions, to reword the content to address the concerns of one of the other users. I have, in fact, seemed to have now placated ], thus, I hope, resolving the issue. --] 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

* Article protected for one week. Enjoy your weekend, gentlemen, and loom for common ground before resuming editing. If further edit-wars ensue, I will not hesitate to block all participants. ] <small>]</small> 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Chihuahua (dog)}}. {{3RRV|DavidShankBone}}
*Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
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 -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:

*{{3RRV|DavidShankBone}} was warned about behavior but continues to revert to an image of his own silly looking dog, which he claims is a "champion chihuahua" ] 22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Note:''' {{3RRV|DavidShankBone}} was not issued a 3RR warning. ] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe already decided on this report. Chichichihua, keep putting it back until you get the answer you want, and it's you that's likely to be blocked for disruption. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

this is a new report, this user continued reverting after the last warning from wjbscribe ] 06:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
*It is my belief that ] is only interested in disruptive behavior. First, this editor continually tried to replace the on the ] page with . It is interesting that out of all the photographs this editor could have chosen from the other Chihuahuas on the page, they chose the very photograph that the ] page discuss in particular as being one of the poorer quality images. Not only is there consensus about the lead, there is consensus on the Talk page to '''not use''' the photograph ] wants to use. Then this editor canvassed the editor who uploaded the photograph, who is now also engaging in an edit war. This editor has been warned on their talk page, has been warned by an admin about edit warring, and continues their disruptive behavior. I would like to point out that this behavior is similar to my months-long battle with an IP troll, who is now a --] 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

whatever. this is plain and simple four reverts in 24 hours to put up a picture of your pet which isn't even a pure chihuahua! you were given the benefit of the doubt before but now you are just revert warring. ] 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:I concur completely with David's assessment of the situation. It is not a simple case of him reverting to his own pet image either, for the above reasons, and that I also have undone Chichichihua's disruptive edits on the article several times. Reverting an obvious vandal is not a violation of the 3RR. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah I'll go with David and Van Tuckey, both of whom have considerable better edit histories than Chichichihua in this case. David strikes me as a good faith editor with knowledge of chihuahuas, so edit away, mate, ] 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

]
according to the vandalism page, '''Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.''' is putting this image up compromising the integrity of wikipedia? anyone would recognize it as a chihuahua. ] 03:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a compromise of Misplaced Pages's integrity when you choose an image that has been decided though consensus to be unsuitable, and repeatedly add it without a single reasonable attempt to create a new consensus about it. Repeatedly adding counterproductive, low-quality images without any discussion is disruptive to say the least. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry vantucky, your definition of vandalism is not what i see on the policy page. it also doesn't describe the situation. there is at least one other user which supports using the image to the right over the boston terrier mix that is there now. you know this because you've reverted his work. here's when to apply the "vandalism" exception: according to 3rr reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking -- this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. ] 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''] has now''': 1. Edit warred; 2. been incivil; 3. removed an admins remarks on this noticeboard; 4. canvassed; 5. disregarded all attempts at civil engagement; 6. plastered an image on at least three pages; and 7. been told they are being disruptive on the admin board by bringing up multiple 3RR cases. Could an admin address this editor's disruptive behavior, please? --] 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Ottoman_Armenian_casualties}}. {{3RRV|Flavius_Belisarius}}: Time reported: 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
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 -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:

*{{3RRV|Flavius_Belisarius}} has already been blocked 48 hours, for revert warring
*Diff of 3RR warning:

The first revert was a revert of ], who is a sock of the banned ]. Reversions of banned editors do not count toward the three-revert rule. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

===]/] reported by ] (Result:blocks)===
*] violation on {{Article|Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz}}. {{3RRV|Chubeat8}}/{{3RRV|216.198.139.38}}: Time reported: 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

*Diffs of 3RR warnings:

*That these are the same user, already transparent, is clearly demonstrated here: Note the "KAWAKIBI" identity in addition to Chubeat; also "Jean-François Lafleure." Besides the multiple identities and revert spree, this user has been very uncivil to all; see ], . Based on my limited contact with this individual, it seems most unlikely that he/she will ever be a productive contributor.] 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
::'''Note:''' This page is for reporting 3RR violations only, for reporting suspected sockpuppets or suspected use of sockpuppets, please go to ]. --] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Nat.tang, it is a 3RR report. Anon does not hide that he/she is Chubeat8 (among others):.] 05:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
::::If that is the case, go and find an admin and he or she will probably block the user for distruptive editing and sockpuppetry. ] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::This is one of the Administrators' noticeboards.] 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
*Update: For whatever reason, Nat.tang opened ] on this obvious case, which was, of course, "confirmed."] 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

*That is pretty obvious. The user is blocked, and I blocked the ip for disruptive edit-warring. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:48h)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka}}. {{3RRV|Snowolfd4}}: Time reported: 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
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 -->
*Previous version reverted to:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*In the first two edits he reverts in (as he admits "for the umpteenth time") the description "pro-LTTE" to describe the Tamil daily ''Uthayan''. The next three are simple reversions of other editors' edits, using the "undo" feature. He has been blocked several times before for 3RR, so he's well aware of the policy. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
*Unless you haven't noted, the first two reverts were clearly adding cited content back to the article (the words "pro-LTTE" are directly used in the citation), and ], who removed the words while making grammatical edits had no objections in me adding them back. --] <sup>( ] / ] )</sup> 06:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Note:''' This is not the place to be discussing a dispute, please continue discussion elsewhere such as a user talk page. ] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 06:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
***Three reverts are three reverts, it was clearly not a revertion of a simple vandalism. I gave 48h as it is not the first 3RR block of the user ] 06:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
::::This is unfair. A simple 1 or 2 hr block would have sufficed considering the circumstances. Jayjg's behaviour has been despicable and he's insisting on things that come across as extraordinarily ridiculous and weird. He is making up his own policies on the fly and trying to browbeat editors there. ] 06:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::He didn't make up ]. ] 07:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::I didnt say he was making up WP:3RR. I was only saying that rapping snowolf for some grammar mistakes and for reverting vandalism is hardly fair. ] 07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, there ''really'' is no 5 reverts at all! There are only 3 reverts that can be seen as revert warring. The first two are actually two edits in a series of edits by multiple editors and was done only to fix the grammar. What happened was Black Falcon removed a part of the sentence because it was not grammatically correct. Snowolf fixed the grammar and brought it back. It took a couple of edits to do this and even Black Falcon didnt complain!! Jayjg presenting it as part of revert warring on snowolf's part is downright despicable. I request the admins to unblock snowolf. ] 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:: No, it was 5 reverts. 3 were done to revert the Lead paragraph to the user's earlier edit. The other 2 was done to put the article to what the user has edited to earlier. So, in essence, eventhough he did not directly revert the same paragraph, the user reverted the article to what he had written earlier 5 times. Sarvaganya, please refrain from attacking other editors. Please read ] and do not make statements like "Jayjg's behaviour has been despicable and he's insisting on things that come across as extraordinarily ridiculous and weird. He is making up his own policies on the fly and trying to browbeat editors there". PS.Jayjg did not block user. He followed wikipedia procedures. Thanks ] 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:Discussion moved to ])===
*] violation on
{{Article|Talk:Straw-bale construction}}. {{3RRV|Hu12}}: Time reported: 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
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 -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:

*This is an attempt by me to organize a poll. I request that those responding keep their vote separate from the discussion (i.e., vote in one section and discuss in another). After the discussion begins to get going in the "Poll" section, I simply remove the discussion to a discussion section, above. He ignores my explanation and reverts. I continue to try to explain he continues to revert, with malice (e.g., ordering me: "DO NOT REMOVE other people's cmments!" (which I didn't) and to "CEASE refactoring other peoples commentss"). In the process, the poll is completely disrupted. ] 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
**Umm...just a FYI...Hu12's an sysop, so blocking him would be fruitless...because he could simply unblock himself. ] <sup> ] | ] | ]</sup> 09:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::→ I think this was done to make a ] and Very likley a ]
::→ ''<u>See also</u>: ] <br>
::→ ''<u>See also</u>: ]<br>
::→ ''<u>See also</u>: ] <br>
::→ ''<u>See also</u>: ]

::Revisions to remove ] do no violate the Three-revert rule and are the Exception to ]. Under '''Discussion page vandalism''' Where ''"An obvious exception would be moving posts to a proper place''"<small></small>. this was not at all the case with ] edits. ] was <u>intentionaly moving discussions ''away'' from their intended place</u> (see below for diffs), and in doing so is considered vandalism. Even after repeated attempts in edit summaries, and in discussion to prevent the removal of these discussions, this behavior continued. I'll add also, based on the direction of consensus currently (based on policies ] and ]), which is opposite of ]'s position) this may even qualify as possibly Sneaky vandalism, which involves reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the consensus/poll process, as there seems to no other legitamate reason for the actions. --] 10:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::*] violation by ] on {{Article|Talk:Straw-bale construction}}.
::*1st revert:
::*2nd revert:
::*3rd revert:
::*4th revert:

::Being active in the discussion portion of the page, and being the one reverting the vandalism, it would be more appropriate for another sysop to make the block. Obviously this was prompted by the filing of ]. It is worth noting that ] has been blocked in the past for making ]. Thank you--] 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Discussion continues here &ndash; ]. — ] ] 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

::::Two brief observations on what Hu12 has said:
::::#It is curious that he now thinks that I've violated ]. When he made a report at ] he said that I was "dangerously becomming close to a 3RR violation ." (i.e., not a 3RR violation). I have made no edits to the page in question since then.
::::#Point taken that a block might not be feasible since he is an admin. However, his actions do require some sort of sanction, IMO. I have no wish to escalate this further, so my report here will stand. ] 17:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 24h)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Family First Party}}. {{3RRV|203.87.127.18}}: Time reported: 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
*Diff of 3RR warning:

:Soft blocked for now. Next time please include the DIFFTIME.--] 12:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 24h)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Godzilla: Unleashed}}. {{3RRV|SG-17}}: Time reported: 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
] keeps putting a vehicle section on the ''Godzilla: Unleashed'' page that is not needed and not important and he thinks if he puts sources, the section says. But the section is not important and keeps ignoring my warnings that I will report him. The Godzilla pages do not have a section that talks about vehicles in the game. --] 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result: No Action see comment)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Professional_wrestling_aerial_techniques}}. {{3RRV|Timber99}}: Time reported: 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
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 -->
*1st revert: User blanked page
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:

] has no other contributions other than the blanking of the Professional wrestling aerial techniques page, and then the undoing of each revert I had made to put the page back to my last edit. User account was created exactly 1 hour after I made an edit to this page, and user blanked the page 3 minutes after my edit posted. After I undid user's revision, Timber99 undid my version to the version prior to my original edit. I had stated on the talk page that I did not want an edit war, afterwhich Timber99 accused me of attacking them. I had added valid content which was sourced, unlike much of the content on that page, including the version they keep reverting to. The section I added was well-sourced, but the section Timber99 keeps reverting to contains 1 source which appears to be from a fan page. Timber99 feels I need to prove my information using reliable sources, while they defend the current content which contains one non-reliable source. If it needs to go to a review I am confident that my edit should stand. ] 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

:I initially indef blocked Timber99 as a vandal based on his first couple of edits but when I went back to check I realised that this was an editing dispute with a new user who was finding the interface a struggle. I have therefore rescinded the block with apologies. Had I done my homework I would have simply said editing dispute seems to have moved to talk page. No further action required. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::I left this on your Talk page as well: Hey Spartaz, as I am sure you are aware there was a problem with the new user ] on the page ]. In the event that this user continued to revert the edits that I made to a move with references. I saw you initially blocked him, then unblocked him feeling that it went to a Talk page... however he again not only reverted the page again (after your reverted back to my edit), he added this to my talk page:

''"According to what you wrote on my page, there is a rule about making an edit which goes back to anold version more than 3 times in 24 hours. You're currently at 3 so im giving u aheads up. please be more careful in the future not to engage in "edit wars." i explained on talk page why it is important to get a discussion going about this change ebfore it is made"''

Furthermore, he continues to refuse to sign any of his messages and it seems as though this is a user may be a sockpuppet who created this account in order to not blemish his own user account. Not accusing, although he/she seems to know a little more than the regular 'novice' user. Could you please help me with this situation, because it is getting ridiculous. Also note, there are absolutely no edits made by Timber99 other than reverting my edits on a well thought out & referenced change made by me. I did everything possible including adding a friendly Welcome tag to his talk page, and tried to discuss the issue... Please help!!! ] 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
: Note to other admins, I have this in hand. Both editors are quite new and need some guidence. No further action required at 3RR. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

===] reported by ] (Result:)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka}}. {{3RRV|Watchdogb}}: Time reported: 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to:

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
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 -->
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:

No warn given since this user was blocked for disruptive editing two times previously.
This user has performed more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour in ] page as a clear violation of ]. --] ]</sup> 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:: The 3rd evidence you have shown is not a revert. I took that off because it was there from before and no reason was given. Also there was another Totally disputed tags above that one. This is not violating 3 RR because I only reverted 2 edits that other editors thought were redundant and POV. The last revert was on a the fact that there was allready a disputed tags put on the opening paragraph of the body of the article ] 00:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::: Whats the point in having 2 "The neurality and accuracy of this article is disputed" in the same article ? Taking that off is not reverting.... It's called cleaning up the article. Thanks ] 01:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::Rules say "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". However, I have only reverted 3 times (2 of same material and 1 of a different). The 3 revert given on this evidence is not a revert... It is clean up of the article. ] 01:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, you undid the insertion of the tag twice and undid the insertion of the sentence twice that makes four reverts within 24 hours neither of which was reverting simple vandalism. If you were cleaning up the article then you have to state that in the edit summary or in talkpage. But not in this way.--] ]</sup> 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::: No, I only reverted the tags ONCE thus bringing the total of reverts to 3. Also note '''Abuse of tags'''. There was actually 3 Totally disputed tags applied to the article. One was taken off but 2 remained. That's why I deleted it. How can an article be placed with 2 of these tags ? As it clearly says "This articles..." ] 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Pleae see vandalism. Abusing the tags are vandalism.

:::::If you think that adding several {{tl|TotallyDisputed}} to the article is tag abusing then you could replace them with {{tl|Totally-disputed-section}}. After someone make a 3RR report, crying over here to justify your edits doesn't make any sense.--] ]</sup> 04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::::::Reverting is undoing another editors contributions, which is what you did '''twice''' in removing the tags. And this is not the proper way to say '' I'm gonna remove the tags since they are duplications;
::::::::''13:32, July 29, 2007 Watchdogb (Talk | contribs) (8,232 bytes) (→Involuntary disappearances - whats disputed here ? Check discussion''
::::::::''22:57, July 29, 2007 Watchdogb (Talk | contribs) (8,142 bytes) (Undid revision 147939377 by Lahiru k (talk)what does LTTE have to do with the allegation by AHRC? Care to discuss please ?)''
::::::Hope you understand everything very clearly. --] ]</sup> 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::''Example'' :] --] ]</sup> 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One quick look at that talk page will explain why that tag was added. And in any case, this is a open and shut case of violating 3RR. If snowolf can be blocked 48 hrs for correcting grammar, then I feel watchdog deserves a longer block for revert warring with content. ] 01:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, there is not violation in taking off vandalism. Please take a look at abusing the tags. I left that on the edit summery as ] and did not want to call anyone a Vandal. I asked why it was disputed so that if someone can provide reason then its better to add "section is disputed tags" or "Fact" tags. Thats why I asked for a discussion so that I can add proper tags so that the article can be fixed ] 01:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::Please take a look at this Even he thinks its not addressed. Thus he took it off also. This is also clean up as mine was. Check his edit summery '' rm disputed tags. If there are specific issues to be addressed, please explain in talk ''. Thanks ] 02:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Now it's too late. Werther you explained rolling on floor doesn't make any sense since you have violated the basics of ];
:::<blockquote>An editor '''must not''' perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.</blockquote>
:::In ] Snowolfd4 blocked for 48h just for fixing grammar. There even you made a comment. So hope you understand the policy even better than me. --] ]</sup> 04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: User snowolfd4 did more than "fix grammar" he reverted. He was not removing vandalism. However, I was. If you see an earlier version where there are 3 "This article is disputed" tags. This is blalent abuse of the tags. One was taken off but the user who took off one forgot to take off another. So, I came along to fix it thats it. ] 11:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==
There is no violation here. The 2nd and 3rd reverts are consecutive edits by the same user, which according to ], is to be considered an one revert. So, there are only 3 reverts. Policy states:
''Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule''
] 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
===] reported by ]===
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PaleoFile}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*] violation on
{{Article|The Rocky Horror Picture Show}}. {{3RRV|Amadscientist}}: Time reported: 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
*First reversion: and (No edit summaries; though he did not directly revert the edit the was identical to a revert, except for a small addition)
*Second reversion: (The consensus on the talk page and the consensus achieved after your edit war)
*Third reversion: (No edit summary)
*Fourth reversion: (I gave my reason previously. It has not changed. After the first edit back you should have left it and attempted to change the consensus. You are edit warring.)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
I warned him in my edit summary of my third revert that we had both reached our limit. In the words of ], "this is clearly one of the silliest edit-wars ever," but Amadscientist seems unwilling to compromise with me. ] 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
#
::I would not normally comment on this sort of thing, but I believe it should be pointed out that ] is simply not editing in good faith. He made an edit that went against consensus. I edited it back to where it was and went to the talk page where he immediately accused me of both personal attacks and being uncivil. He clearly has returned to the page to start a second edit war and his first edit summery bears this out. I believe Atropos should be blocked from editing on the page as purposely being disruptive. I have attempted to start a discussion on the subject to see if consensus has changed and followed Wiki suggestion of creating a poll to gauge editors opinions. This was then called "disjointing (the) discussion".
#
#
#


::I believe it is the purpose of this member to create a problem and go against Wiki policy himself to bait me into changes to report me for 3RR violation. But I will abide by any decision reached of course.--] 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


:::I have tried to explain how consensus develops to this user; I even placed the flowchart at the policy page directly in the article. Him and another user had previously agreed that a cast section was unnecessary, I disagreed. He blew it into this out of control issue. Further, if I was baiting him to break the 3RR, I wouldn't've specifically warned him that he would break it if he reverted again. None of this is actually relevant, as he has clearly and knowingly violated the 3RR. He has a history of doing so; in addition to what Kww mentioned he broke the 3RR at ]. ] 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


:Just to point it out, this is the second time that amadscientist has violated 3RR on this article. The first time (June 13, 2007), he was rewarded by getting the article protected for a week while he threw a tantrum. Hopefully, this time you will block him for a while and get him off of that high horse that he rides so well.] 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::That is simply not true. I have never been found to violate the 3RR rule. What he means is that he reported me once before over the same article. No action was taken. I believed it was a wrangling attempt then, as I do now. Also, as I remember the article was protected a second week due to "Edit warring and refusal to discuss it on the talk page". I know I made every attempt to discuss the problem on the talk page, but even after a week I was accused of "Holding the article hostage".--] 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::That you did it is documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=138064070
:::That you weren't punished for it is the reason that we are back here today. ] 10:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::That you don't understand the difference between accusing someone and their being found guilty, as well as an obvious vendetta is why '''You''' are here. As for my "high horse" it certainly is far lower than yours. While there certainly were enough lessons to learn from the last situation, just who learned what would be a very good question to ask. I leave this in the hands of admin. This thread is long enough.--] 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hour block)===
FYI: This user is the same as ] (blocked for vandalism), and ], as well as ] (and possibly others). ] 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
*] violation on
{{Article|Church of Christ (Temple Lot)}}. {{3RRV|69.154.18.251}}. Time Reported: 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*Previous version reverted to: one without a certain link reporting Jordan Smith as the individual who engaged in arson.


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*1st revert: (as ])
*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*2nd revert:
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
*3rd revert:
*4th revert: *:1.
*5th revert: *:2.
*6th revert: *: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: Both blocked 48 hours) ==
User has also removed comments about their reverts on the talk page:
*


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Robert de Quincy}} <br />
I have discussed edits on the talk page, as well as encouraged this user to provide reasoning for why he is reverting the content in question, but he has declined to discuss his reverts on the article's talk page. ] 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Pipera}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
This is not exactly related, but it appears that these users are the same individual that was convicted of the arson talked about in the article, and it may be entirely inappropriate for him to be editing this section to begin with. ] 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
This user has also engaged in extensive name-calling, as his edit history (and that of his other usernames) will show. ] 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*It may be worth noting, OTRS has gotten involved on this. So the 3RR block, if there is one, should be short to allow the user to follow through with our suggestions. ] 09:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
**24 hour block.


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ,
===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Alex Jones (radio)}}. {{3RRV|Gobuffs10}}: Time reported: 07:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


*Previous version reverted to: '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:


Pipera has chosen to add grandchildren and great grandchildren to the Robert de Quincy article. I have stated on the article talk page this is unnecessary and off-topic to Robert de Quincy. They have also misrepresented what a source states, which I have also stated on the article talk page.
*Diff of 3RR warning:
:*'''Blocked''' &ndash; 24 hours, for a violation of ] ~ ] 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Even while filling out this report Pipera has reverted me twice, choosing to add back an unused 1790 source to the Sources section, and readding Robert's grandchildren and great grandchildren. This after being told by user:Ealdgyth(17 December 2024) that ]. Honestly, I don't think Pipera is here to build a community encyclopedia. --] (]) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
{{hat|content user added to the article.--] (]) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:I have added the followi9ng:
:Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. .
:Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided.
:They had:
:Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester
:Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew
:Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue:
:Robert de St Andrew married Albreda
:James de St Andrew (1228)
:Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278)
:William de St Andrew
:Laurence de St Andrew
:Saer II de St Andrew
:John de St Andrew
:Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249)
:Orabilis and Robert divorced.
:Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. .
:it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here.
:They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.
{{hab}}
:I do not think I have broken any rules by adding this to his article supported by the external links provided. ] (]) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have posted to the talk page this is also incorrect. ] (]) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am not in an edit war, I posted new information which is educationally correct and was removed without any academic argument it was gone. no pre talk on the talk page concerning what was supplied by the person deleting the information.
:They firstly need to raise and entry and then talk and resolve, ] (]) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am expanding these articles not rolling them back. I have been editing here since at least the year 2001, I was editing entries for the 9/11 project obituaries for the people that passed in 9/11. ] (]) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:See
:User talk:Paramandyr: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Paramandyr&diff=prev&oldid=1264014635
:Latest revision as of 23:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo thank
:Paramandyr (talk | contribs)
:removed, stay off my talk page
:Tag: Undo ] (]) 00:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}}. ] (]) 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale; content removed) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Hebron}}. {{3RRV|Jaakobou}}: Time reported: 08:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sigma Boy}} <br />
*Previous version reverted to: (Note especially the paragraph which begins "The ] reports ".)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D}}


*1st revert: '''Previous version reverted to:'''
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*Diff of 3RR warning: , with further discussion .
#
This user doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of the 3RR, despite repeated attempts at explanation. ] 08:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
#


* '''comment''' - (1) i've opened a about this material. (2) a couple of the editors have been uncivil in commentary and possibly POV pushing by removing referenced relevant material. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:As I said, the user doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of the 3RR. On an unrelated point, I believe that User:Jaakobou has confused exasperation with incivility. ] 08:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* '''comment''' - ], being disruptive<sup></sup>, and rude<sup>, </sup> cannot be excused as "exasperation". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:'''Comment''': ] is trying to conflate a content dispute with a policy violation. I maintain that he doesn't seem to understand the concept of the 3RR, and will add that his behaviour in this discussion has been sadly typical of his general behaviour on Misplaced Pages.
:I'm a bit puzzled that no-one has addressed the 3RR violation as of yet. ] 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment'''- i'm a bit puzzled by your style of personal attacks and accusations of ''"typical general behaviour on Misplaced Pages"'' , being uncivil is by no means helpful to the wiki project. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not going to continue this discussion here. I'll reiterate my request that someone address the 3RR violation. ] 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* '''comment''' - i've reached a certain level of consensus with another editor on this disputed material that the material in itself is relevant, only that the phrasing needs amendment to make the connection to the article more evident.<sup>] (link)</sup> <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If the IP reverts one more time, could someone please block them and revert their nonsensical edit? (Okay, maybe it's not "nonsensical", but it's incorrect.) ] (]) 02:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}}; content removed until a consensus is found ] (]) 13:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
:That's an interesting point, but it doesn't justify the 3RR violation. ] 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <br />
===] reported by ] (Result:No action taken)===
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
*] violation on
]. {{User:Traffic Demon}}: Time reported: 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
#
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 -->
*1st revert: #
*2nd revert: #
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:


* This user has repeatedly insisted on reverting the edits of at least 3 others and has been against forming consensus or taking a vote. Although he has participated in discussion on the ], he has only used the discussion to insist that he will not change his mind.] 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:*'''No action taken''' &ndash; the links provided were from several days ago; as blocks are ], not ], I'm not going to issue a block at this time ~ ] 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but I was listing the first of about 15 reverted edits that were made. Check it out.] 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Corner Gas}}. {{3RRV|68.149.47.144}}: Time reported: 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


*Previous version reverted to:


*1st revert: '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
*Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
This is an ongoing thing, but the reverts I listed are within the last 24 hours. (Apologies if I did something wrong; this is my first time reporting one of these.) ] 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:No, you did great; the only thing outstanding is that you're meant to give the time each of the links above occurred, by adding 00:00 01 January 2007 to the end (replacing with a space, obviously. Not that it matters - most Administrators will double check the times anyway; so, '''IP Blocked''' &ndash; 10 hours, for a ] violation ~ ] 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
===] reported by ] (Result:Already blocked)===
*] violation on
{{Article|David Irving}}. {{3RRV|66.131.139.158}}: Time reported: 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


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)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
::@]
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
::"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)
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
:::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)
*1st revert:
::::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)
*2nd revert:
::::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)
*3rd revert:
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*4th revert:


== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
The anon user is already blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:No violation; page protected)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Social apartheid}}. {{3RRV|Jayjg}}: Time reported: 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
I'm not sure how to do this but if you look at the history of ] you'll see that Jayjg reverted at 17:42, 30 July 2007, 19:21, 30 July 2007, 20:45, 30 July 2007 and 20:55, 30 July 2007 Jayjg.
#
:The first one was not a revert, and the page has been protected now by ]. In fact, it was protected before you made your report. ] ] 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
#
#
# (second IP)


===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Gene Tierney}}. {{3RRV|68.167.65.63}}: Time reported: 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


i, too, may be in violation, because i didn't realise this has been going on since yesterday when i made the changes today.


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning:
:*'''Blocked''' &ndash; 10 hours, for a ] violation ~ ] 22:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''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
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Gothic chess}}. {{3RRV|GothicEnthusiast}}: Time reported: 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Continual unexplained/unjustified removal of section tags (that I added to promote discussion of the section's contents).


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*1st revert:
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)
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Marc Benioff}}
<noinclude>== Example ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|99.98.190.59}}
<pre>
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
# {{diff2|1265027253|18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
# {{diff2|1265009969|16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
# {{diff2|1264902002|03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*1st revert:
# {{diff2|1264865734|23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
# {{diff2|1265024674|18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
# {{diff2|1265033023|18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
*Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
# {{diff2|1265024924|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
</pre></noinclude>
]

Latest revision as of 19:00, 24 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:Pipera reported by User:Paramandyr (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Robert de Quincy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pipera (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: ,

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

    Comments:

    Pipera has chosen to add grandchildren and great grandchildren to the Robert de Quincy article. I have stated on the article talk page this is unnecessary and off-topic to Robert de Quincy. They have also misrepresented what a source states, which I have also stated on the article talk page.

    Even while filling out this report Pipera has reverted me twice, choosing to add back an unused 1790 source to the Sources section, and readding Robert's grandchildren and great grandchildren. This after being told by user:Ealdgyth(17 December 2024) that WP:AGEMATTERS. Honestly, I don't think Pipera is here to build a community encyclopedia. --Paramandyr (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    content user added to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I have added the followi9ng:
    Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. .
    Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided.
    They had:
    Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester
    Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew
    Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue:
    Robert de St Andrew married Albreda
    James de St Andrew (1228)
    Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278)
    William de St Andrew
    Laurence de St Andrew
    Saer II de St Andrew
    John de St Andrew
    Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249)
    Orabilis and Robert divorced.
    Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. .
    it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here.
    They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.
    I do not think I have broken any rules by adding this to his article supported by the external links provided. Pipera (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have posted to the talk page this is also incorrect. Pipera (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am not in an edit war, I posted new information which is educationally correct and was removed without any academic argument it was gone. no pre talk on the talk page concerning what was supplied by the person deleting the information.
    They firstly need to raise and entry and then talk and resolve, Pipera (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am expanding these articles not rolling them back. I have been editing here since at least the year 2001, I was editing entries for the 9/11 project obituaries for the people that passed in 9/11. Pipera (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    See
    User talk:Paramandyr: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Paramandyr&diff=prev&oldid=1264014635
    Latest revision as of 23:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo thank
    Paramandyr (talk | contribs)
    removed, stay off my talk page
    Tag: Undo Pipera (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D reported by User:Moscow Connection (Result: Stale; content removed)

    Page: Sigma Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D (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:

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

    Comments:
    If the IP reverts one more time, could someone please block them and revert their nonsensical edit? (Okay, maybe it's not "nonsensical", but it's incorrect.) Moscow Connection (talk) 02:59, 22 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: 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: )

    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:

    Categories: