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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:42, 30 July 2007 editArcticocean (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,226 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:Blocked, 20 hours): blocked, 20 hours← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:47, 23 December 2024 edit undoEvergreenFir (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,232 edits →User:Napoleonjosephine2020 reported by User:Kline (Result: ): Blocked 24 hours (using responseHelper)
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''' – {{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''' – 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 – ]. — ] ] 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)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|:Pratt & Whitney F135}} <br />
	:::Now it's too late. Werther you explained rolling on floor doesn't make any sense since you have violated the basics of ];
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|湾岸2024}}
	:::<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)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	===] reported by ]===
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] 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.)

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

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:::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)

			Baffling edits, baffling discussion on article talk page, out of ideas. ] ] 19:07, 18 December 2024 (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)
			:Asked not to cross post at ] . Not sure why the user name is giving an error in this report, possibly because the page hasn't been created yet? ] ] 19:24, 18 December 2024 (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)
			::While the user clearly has some ], I disagree with you calling their edits original research on the talk page since they seem to me to be ]. They even reproduce some of that math there. ] (]) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::That you did it is documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=138064070
			:::And, yes, when a user has not yet created a page for themselves, their username is redlinked. It's not an error, just the way the software works. ] (]) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::That you weren't punished for it is the reason that we are back here today. ] 10:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			::::I'm aware of red links, I believe I had put their name in the wrong field. To be fair I don't come here every day. Is four reverts not edit warring? Synthesis, OR and calc aside they were demanding that American engines display their specifications in a Russian/Chinese format. As this is the English Misplaced Pages I don't think it was unreasonable to say that wasn't possible or desired but they persisted anyway. ] ] 09:40, 19 December 2024 (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)
			:::::Well, that last part hadn't been clear until now. Still ... you give only three reverts above, and if I were to infer which edit you meant to be the fourth from the article history it would appear that you are making the entirely too-common mistake of listing the "edit reverted to" as one of the reverts.<p>In fact, they arguably have as strong, if not stronger, a case against ''you'' for violating 3RR as your reverts of their edits do not come under the ] exceptions. I would, seeing as you are as you said not a frequent reporter here, commend your attention to ], written to adddress this sort of situation. ] (]) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Unless I am mistaken I reverted only three times, being very aware of 3RR I stopped and came here. I provided clear rationales in the edit summaries and attempted to converse with the user on the article talk page, it's not accurate to state that I did not try to discuss the problematic edits. I can see this is going nowhere. ] ] 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{re\|Nimbus227}} You're not mistaken. You reverted only 3x. {{U\|湾岸2024}} reverted 4x but the last revert was outside the 24-hour window. Your biggest "mistake", Nimbus227, was that you didn't prepare this report properly. The reason for the error in the username was because you failed to put it in one of the spots the template asks you to - I fixed that if you look back at the history of this page. The second error, which, unfortunately, is not that uncommon was you listed only 3 reverts instead of 4. In any event, because all of this happened a few days ago, I'm going to decline this as stale.--] (]) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 ~~hour~~ ~~block~~)===		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked both (reporter for 1 week and reportee for 72 hours)) ==
	FYI: This user is the same as ] (blocked for vandalism), and ], as well as ] (and possibly others). ] 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2005 Birmingham tornado\|1764 Woldegk tornado}} <br />
	*] violation on
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Luffaloaf}}
	{{Article\|Church of Christ (Temple Lot)}}. {{3RRV\|69.154.18.251}}. Time Reported: 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: one without a certain link reporting Jordan Smith as the individual who engaged in arson.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert: (as ])
	*2nd revert:		#
	*3rd revert:		#
	*4th revert:		#
	*5th revert:		#
	*6th revert:		#
			#
			#

	User has also removed comments about their reverts on the talk page:
	*

	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)

	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)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' None. (User received edit warring block in the last 2 weeks)
	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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] & ], two long talk page discussions.
	*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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Alex Jones (radio)}}. {{3RRV\|Gobuffs10}}: Time reported: 07:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> I may earn a ] for edit warring myself, however, I believe this report is necessary. Luffaloaf seems to ]. This user has 176 edits total, of which, roughly 80% involve some sort of edit war. On December 7, Luffaloaf got involved in an edit war with 3 other editors (See ) and earned a 24 hour edit warring block. Back in October 2024, when they first joined, they received several talk page warnings for edit warring on the ] article (]. And now, less than 2 weeks after being blocked for edit warring, they have done it again on the ] article (). Another editor {{u\|EF5}} that this user also took to Reddit about the edit war. To also help the CIR issue, amid the edit war, actually their after being blocked for edit warring, the added unverified information.
	*Previous version reverted to:

			During today’s edit war with myself, to help diffuse the situation, I if they would be ok with a larger community discussion starting, to which they were ok with it. As such, I . However, despite being reminded of ], twice, (boldly changing content, being challenged by another editor, and then agreeing to discuss it), in two separate edit warring reversions by myself (), with me both times asking to wait for the RFC consensus to see if the content should change, they continued to edit war. I am ok with a boomerang block for edit warring, as I admit that I got well to engaged in the edit war (), but I also see a clear pattern with Luffaloaf not understanding the concept of ], edit warring, and ], given their numerous notifications on it, their recent edit warring block, and the fact roughly 80% of their total edits on Misplaced Pages are engaging in edit wars. This is a case of ] to edit Misplaced Pages, which, in my opinion, seems to be confirmed with those off-Wiki Reddit posts discovered by {{u\|EF5}} linked above. '''The ]''' (] 07:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			:This amounts to character assassination and trying to “ban a POV you dislike”. I engaged in the behavior you did, regrettably. I also made it clear that you supported IP additions without sources at all, and when I re-established edits because I found ample sources for all of them (in accordance with the ongoing talk page back-and-forth), you continued to revert them and uphold flagrant misinformation. My point in doing so after the initial back-and-forth editing was to update the page with the aggregate of sources I had found in the progress of the talk page dispute. Also, where is the data on “80% of my edits being related to edit-warring” ? Immature editing is upholding unsourced edits in spite of sources, and using Misplaced Pages regulation to gatekeep pages. I abided by my original block, and engaged on talk pages as much as possible. In regards to ] edits, I eventually stopped. Not sure how really any of your examples constitute “not being mature enough” to edit Misplaced Pages. That sounds like you trying to ban someone who challenges any edit of yours or POV you favor, a common behavior among established Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 07:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			::Statements like that, along with large replies like on a ] I think help confirm maybe ]. I do apologize for engaging in the edit war. My mistakes should not have encouraged you to do the exact same thing you got blocked for 2 weeks ago back on December 7. If anything, that almost seems to indicate you learned nothing from that block, since you went with “Oh, this editor is doing this, I can do it too”. I am not perfect and here I saw my mistake and admitted it. You got a block 10 days ago and clearly did not learn anything from it. Your editing behavior is a clear pattern now on 3 separate articles, which was seen by other editors, not just myself. '''The ]''' (] 08:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*'''Blocked''' – 24 hours, for a violation of ] ~ ] 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			:::“A good article” = meet Misplaced Pages’s kind of arbitrary editorial standard. The information sourced is poorly represented, and there are massive flaws in the source, yes. Your attempt to uphold an F5 rating and 300 MPH wind speed on the page for that 18th century tornado from the ESSL laughably clashes with your attempt to disregard an EF2 rating for a 2005 tornado, handed down from a structural engineer, previously involved in tons of notable tornado surveys in the US, who undertook an actual damage survey with photo documentation of the damage. It just doesn’t make sense. It indicates to me that you, and maybe others, are trying to exaggerate the intensity of European tornadoes and tornado climatology. You are the malfeasant editor here, regardless of the “Misplaced Pages lawfare” article gatekeeping stuff. You are the only editor who had consistently opposed my edits. ] (]) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\
			::::Will note that Luffaloaf has called Misplaced Pages's rules "autistic" and me a "euroretard" on the same Reddit thread (my Reddit username is "LiminalityMusic", I don't care disclosing that. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 12:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Now at ]. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Will note that this is insane to bring into a Misplaced Pages dispute? This has not happened on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Note: Luffaloaf is with another user, amid this administrator noticeboard discussion. Very clear ] issue with a clear lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages’s ] and ] policies. '''The ]''' (] 19:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:You are continuing to disregard sources to peddle misinformation on multiple pages related to tornadoes in Europe. You can lie all you want, the Birmingham tornado of 2005 was rated an EF2. It’s as plain as day. Why does that upset you so much? ] (]) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|bb\|48 hours}} I see at least 6 reverts each. ] ] 20:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Whether or not I’m supposed to reply here I don’t know. But I would like to ask for some clarification (preferably from @]) on why the comment above says that WeatherWriter was blocked for 48 hours but the talk page says he was blocked for a week. Is there any particular reason for the discrepancy; was there an error or a typo somewhere? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::@] I was using the script tools when I did this. I then went to block the individuals and, upon reviewing their block logs, found previous edit warring behaviors. Per ], "{{tq\|Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur.}}"
			*::{{no ping\|Luffaloaf}} was blocked by {{U\|Favonian}} just the other week for 24 hours for edit warring, so I escalated that to 72 hours. {{no ping\|WeatherWriter}} has a rather lengthy block log, and I saw two blocks for edit warring in it. Upon looking again, I see that the second "block" was just an adjustment of the first one which was 72 hours. Regardless, I do not think an escalation from 3 days (72 hours) to 7 days is unreasonable, especially give the other disputative behavior. ] ] 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Thanks for the clarification. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result:~~Blocked,~~ 20 ~~hours~~)===		== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
	*] violation on
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PaleoFile}}
	{{Article\|Hebron}}. {{3RRV\|Jaakobou}}: Time reported: 08:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: ~~(Note especially the paragraph which begins "The ] reports ".)~~		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:		#
	*3rd revert:		#
	*4th revert:		#
	*5th revert:		#

	*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)

	: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 edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related 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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
	:'''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)

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

			] \| ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:That's an interesting point, but it doesn't justify the 3RR violation. ] 17:10, 30 July 2007 (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.
			*: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)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked 48 hours) ==
	::*'''Blocked''' – 20 hours, for a violation of ] ~ ] 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Robert de Quincy}} <br />
	===] reported by ] (Result:No action taken)===
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Pipera}}
	*] 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:		#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* 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''' – 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)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ,
	===] 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:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

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

			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)
	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)
			{{hat\|content user added to the article.--] (]) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (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''' – 10 hours, for a ] violation ~ ] 18:57, 30 July 2007 (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:~~Already~~ ~~blocked~~)===		== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale; content removed) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|David Irving}}. {{3RRV\|66.131.139.158}}: Time reported: 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sigma Boy}} <br />
	*Previous version reverted to:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D}}

			'''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:

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

	The anon user is already blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:No violation; page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Social apartheid}}. {{3RRV\|Jayjg}}: Time reported: 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Gene Tierney}}. {{3RRV\|68.167.65.63}}: Time reported: 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	i, too, may be in violation, because i didn't realise this has been going on since yesterday when i made the changes today.
			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) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lindy Li}} <br />
	*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
	Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	:*'''Blocked''' – 10 hours, for a ] violation ~ ] 22:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 14 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Gothic chess}}. {{3RRV\|GothicEnthusiast}}: Time reported: 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Continual unexplained/unjustified removal of section tags (that I added to promote discussion of the section's contents).
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	:*'''Blocked''' – 14 hours, for a serious violation of ] ~ ] 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

	<noinclude>== Example ==

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<pre>
	===] reported by ] (Result:)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
	*Previous version reverted to:

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*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:

			Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->

			: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)
	</pre></noinclude>
			::@]
	]
			::"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)
			:::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)

Latest revision as of 06:47, 23 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:湾岸2024 reported by User:Nimbus227 (Result: Stale)

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:

Baffling edits, baffling discussion on article talk page, out of ideas. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Asked not to cross post at Talk:Pratt & Whitney F119 here. Not sure why the user name is giving an error in this report, possibly because the page hasn't been created yet? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

While the user clearly has some competence issues, I disagree with you calling their edits original research on the talk page since they seem to me to be simple, routine arithmetic based on sourced numbers which does not count as original research. They even reproduce some of that math there. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

And, yes, when a user has not yet created a page for themselves, their username is redlinked. It's not an error, just the way the software works. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of red links, I believe I had put their name in the wrong field. To be fair I don't come here every day. Is four reverts not edit warring? Synthesis, OR and calc aside they were demanding that American engines display their specifications in a Russian/Chinese format. As this is the English Misplaced Pages I don't think it was unreasonable to say that wasn't possible or desired but they persisted anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that last part hadn't been clear until now. Still ... you give only three reverts above, and if I were to infer which edit you meant to be the fourth from the article history it would appear that you are making the entirely too-common mistake of listing the "edit reverted to" as one of the reverts.

In fact, they arguably have as strong, if not stronger, a case against you for violating 3RR as your reverts of their edits do not come under the 3RRNO exceptions. I would, seeing as you are as you said not a frequent reporter here, commend your attention to WP:DISCFAIL, written to adddress this sort of situation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken I reverted only three times, being very aware of 3RR I stopped and came here. I provided clear rationales in the edit summaries and attempted to converse with the user on the article talk page, it's not accurate to state that I did not try to discuss the problematic edits. I can see this is going nowhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nimbus227: You're not mistaken. You reverted only 3x. 湾岸2024 reverted 4x but the last revert was outside the 24-hour window. Your biggest "mistake", Nimbus227, was that you didn't prepare this report properly. The reason for the error in the username was because you failed to put it in one of the spots the template asks you to - I fixed that if you look back at the history of this page. The second error, which, unfortunately, is not that uncommon was you listed only 3 reverts instead of 4. In any event, because all of this happened a few days ago, I'm going to decline this as stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Luffaloaf reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: Blocked both (reporter for 1 week and reportee for 72 hours))

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None. (User received edit warring block in the last 2 weeks)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado#The tornado was rated F2, or T4, not “T5-6” or F3 & Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado#Should the article’s infobox indicate EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6?, two long talk page discussions.

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

Comments:
I may earn a boomerang block for edit warring myself, however, I believe this report is necessary. Luffaloaf seems to lack the competence required to edit Misplaced Pages. This user has 176 edits total, of which, roughly 80% involve some sort of edit war. On December 7, Luffaloaf got involved in an edit war with 3 other editors (See 1764 Woldegk tornado: Revision history) and earned a 24 hour edit warring block. Back in October 2024, when they first joined, they received several talk page warnings for edit warring on the Harry Potter article (User talk:Luffaloaf#October 2024. And now, less than 2 weeks after being blocked for edit warring, they have done it again on the 2005 Birmingham tornado article (see article revision history). Another editor EF5 noted back during the December 7 edit war that this user also took to Reddit about the edit war. To also help the CIR issue, amid the edit war, actually their first edit to the article after being blocked for edit warring, the added unverified information.

During today’s edit war with myself, to help diffuse the situation, I directly asked if they would be ok with a larger community discussion starting, to which they replied they were ok with it. As such, I opened an RFC. However, despite being reminded of WP:BRD, twice, (boldly changing content, being challenged by another editor, and then agreeing to discuss it), in two separate edit warring reversions by myself (), with me both times asking to wait for the RFC consensus to see if the content should change, they continued to edit war. I am ok with a boomerang block for edit warring, as I admit that I got well to engaged in the edit war (I deserve it for this edit summary), but I also see a clear pattern with Luffaloaf not understanding the concept of WP:3RR, edit warring, and WP:BRD, given their numerous notifications on it, their recent edit warring block, and the fact roughly 80% of their total edits on Misplaced Pages are engaging in edit wars. This is a case of not being mature enough to edit Misplaced Pages, which, in my opinion, seems to be confirmed with those off-Wiki Reddit posts discovered by EF5 linked above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This amounts to character assassination and trying to “ban a POV you dislike”. I engaged in the behavior you did, regrettably. I also made it clear that you supported IP additions without sources at all, and when I re-established edits because I found ample sources for all of them (in accordance with the ongoing talk page back-and-forth), you continued to revert them and uphold flagrant misinformation. My point in doing so after the initial back-and-forth editing was to update the page with the aggregate of sources I had found in the progress of the talk page dispute. Also, where is the data on “80% of my edits being related to edit-warring” ? Immature editing is upholding unsourced edits in spite of sources, and using Misplaced Pages regulation to gatekeep pages. I abided by my original block, and engaged on talk pages as much as possible. In regards to Harry Potter edits, I eventually stopped. Not sure how really any of your examples constitute “not being mature enough” to edit Misplaced Pages. That sounds like you trying to ban someone who challenges any edit of yours or POV you favor, a common behavior among established Misplaced Pages editors. Luffaloaf (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Statements like that, along with large replies like this one on a good article I think help confirm maybe righting great wrongs. I do apologize for engaging in the edit war. My mistakes should not have encouraged you to do the exact same thing you got blocked for 2 weeks ago back on December 7. If anything, that almost seems to indicate you learned nothing from that block, since you went with “Oh, this editor is doing this, I can do it too”. I am not perfect and here I saw my mistake and admitted it. You got a block 10 days ago and clearly did not learn anything from it. Your editing behavior is a clear pattern now on 3 separate articles, which was seen by other editors, not just myself. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

“A good article” = meet Misplaced Pages’s kind of arbitrary editorial standard. The information sourced is poorly represented, and there are massive flaws in the source, yes. Your attempt to uphold an F5 rating and 300 MPH wind speed on the page for that 18th century tornado from the ESSL laughably clashes with your attempt to disregard an EF2 rating for a 2005 tornado, handed down from a structural engineer, previously involved in tons of notable tornado surveys in the US, who undertook an actual damage survey with photo documentation of the damage. It just doesn’t make sense. It indicates to me that you, and maybe others, are trying to exaggerate the intensity of European tornadoes and tornado climatology. You are the malfeasant editor here, regardless of the “Misplaced Pages lawfare” article gatekeeping stuff. You are the only editor who had consistently opposed my edits. Luffaloaf (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\

Will note that Luffaloaf has called Misplaced Pages's rules "autistic" and me a "euroretard" on the same Reddit thread (my Reddit username is "LiminalityMusic", I don't care disclosing that. E_F 12:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Now at WP:ANI. E_F 13:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Will note that this is insane to bring into a Misplaced Pages dispute? This has not happened on Misplaced Pages. Luffaloaf (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: Luffaloaf is continuing to edit war with another user, amid this administrator noticeboard discussion. Very clear WP:CIR issue with a clear lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages’s WP:BRD and WP:3RR policies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
You are continuing to disregard sources to peddle misinformation on multiple pages related to tornadoes in Europe. You can lie all you want, the Birmingham tornado of 2005 was rated an EF2. It’s as plain as day. Why does that upset you so much? Luffaloaf (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours I see at least 6 reverts each. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not I’m supposed to reply here I don’t know. But I would like to ask for some clarification (preferably from @EvergreenFir) on why the comment above says that WeatherWriter was blocked for 48 hours but the talk page says he was blocked for a week. Is there any particular reason for the discrepancy; was there an error or a typo somewhere? Hurricane Clyde 🌀 20:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Hurricane Clyde I was using the script tools when I did this. I then went to block the individuals and, upon reviewing their block logs, found previous edit warring behaviors. Per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur."

Luffaloaf was blocked by Favonian just the other week for 24 hours for edit warring, so I escalated that to 72 hours. WeatherWriter has a rather lengthy block log, and I saw two blocks for edit warring in it. Upon looking again, I see that the second "block" was just an adjustment of the first one which was 72 hours. Regardless, I do not think an escalation from 3 days (72 hours) to 7 days is unreasonable, especially give the other disputative behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Hurricane Clyde 🌀 21:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Both users have been Warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Those users and Mei23448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems continuing edit wars on Monquirasaurus and Sachicasaurus articles.

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) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Pipera reported by User:Paramandyr (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

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.

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)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Stale; content removed until a consensus is found ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: