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 17:11, 7 February 2008 editG2bambino (talk \| contribs)19,847 editsm →User:G2bambino and reported by User:Soulscanner (Result: Protected): repetitious← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:33, 23 December 2024 edit undoBowler the Carmine (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,021 edits →User:PaleoFile reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Warned users): ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{moveprotected\|small=yes}}
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	<noinclude><center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.<br/>]: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.'''<br/> '''Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.''' <br/></center>
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
	</noinclude>
	]
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 65		\|counter = 490
	\|algo = old(~~72h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
	=Violations=
	:Please place new reports {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can for it.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|:Pratt & Whitney F135}} <br />
	<!--
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|湾岸2024}}
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	-->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== Edit war on ] by ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Users asked to cease edit war.) ==
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Plovdiv}}. {{3RRV\|Avidius}} and {{3RRV\|ILike2BeAnonymous}}: Time reported: 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*Diff of ~~3RR~~ ~~warning~~: ,		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Edit war involving the link on ].
	Attempts have been made to discuss the issue on the , yet the reverting still goes on.
	Avidius insists the link is unnecessarily biased.
	ILike2BeAnonymous insists the link should remain because it presents an alternative view.
	Most of the to ] are Avidius and ILike2BeAnonymous (and a few others) reverting between the version with the link, and the version without. ] (]) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

			Baffling edits, baffling discussion on article talk page, out of ideas. ] ] 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Couldn't find a technical violation but the edit war is way out of hand. Users asked to cease disruptive edit war: and . Page will be watched. ] (]) 12:36, 6 February 2008 (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)
			::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)
			:::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)
			::::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)
			:::::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:~~User~~ ~~blocked~~ 48 ~~hours~~ ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked both (reporter for 1 week and reportee for 72 hours)) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2005 Birmingham tornado\|1764 Woldegk tornado}} <br />
	*] violation on
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Luffaloaf}}
	{{Article\|List of Death Note characters}}. {{3RRV\|156.110.42.10}}: Time reported: 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:		#
	*3rd revert:		#
	*4th revert:		#
	*5th revert:		#
	*Diff of 3RR warning: ~~- Warned after #5.~~		#
	*6th revert:		#
	*7th revert:		#
	*8th revert:
	*9th revert:
	*10th revert:

	This user continues to insert a list of facts about the characters (height, weight, etc.) which other users have insisted is unnecessary. The page has also been protected because of it. — ] (] \| ]) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:User has been blocked 48 hours, thanks for not violating 3RR yourself. ]<nowiki>\|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 24h ) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Russian Apartment Bombings}}. {{3RRV\|Miyokan}}: Time reported: 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' None. (User received edit warring block in the last 2 weeks)
	*Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] & ], two long talk page discussions.
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	This user keeps inserting information that I and other users find irrelevant. '''The information is from years before and after the actual event the page is about'''. I've tried to explain him on the talk page but it doesn't seem to help. He reverted both my and another users effort. User complains of vandalism and warns us instead. - ] (]) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (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.
	:Reverting vandalism doesn't count, which I gave 2 warnings to this user for. See reporting of this user below. He vandalizes content which he doesn't find agreeable. The only other user who removed this content as well is someone who has admitted that he is a believer of the FSB theory, so these users are removing the counterargument. If user wants to say that this information is irrelevant then how does he explain the "other user who finds it irrelevant"'s reversion which reinserted these entries to the chronology which have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings - ''"July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President."''--] (]) 12:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			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)
	The information that I added is no more "irrelevant" than a lot of the other information on the chronology.--] (]) 12:28, 4 February 2008 (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 ] 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)
	*Both parties blocked for 24 hours. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
			::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)
			:::“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 24h~~ ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
	*] violation on
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PaleoFile}}
	{{Article\|Russian apartment bombings}}. {{3RRV\|Pietervhuis}}: Time reported: 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: ~~<!-- This is MANDATORY. -->~~		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!--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.-->
			#
			#
			#

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	*Last warning:

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
	This user keep removing content which he doesn't like while including the other "irrelevant" information in the article along with another user who has admitted that he believes the FSB theory.] (]) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
	:I didn't add any other information like you're claiming. Your information is irrelevant as its from years before and after the event which the page is about. The other user is allowed to have his personal opinion. - ] (]) 12:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	If user wants to claim that this information is irrelevant then how does he explain the "other user who finds it irrelevant"'s reversion which reinserted these entries to the chronology which have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings - "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President."--] (]) 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			] \| ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:What reversion? I didn't reinsert any of those entries. Also this dispute is about your entries, not these entries. - ] (]) 12:15, 4 February 2008 (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)
			*::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) ==
	::I was referring to ] who is the only "other users" that you invoked as part of your argument. This report is about your violation of 3RR, you do not have a right to violate 3RR to remove what you claim is "irrelevant content".--] (]) 12:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Robert de Quincy}} <br />
	:::Why don't you just ask him or discuss it with him? - ] (]) 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Pipera}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*Both parties blocked 24 hours. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*] violation on
	]. {{3RRV\|82.6.15.4}}: Time reported: 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			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.
	<!--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.-->

			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)
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			{{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) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sigma Boy}} <br />
	*Diff of 3RR warning: (sole entry on user's talk page, won't let me use a "diff")
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	A short explanation of the incident:
	User has added a flag that is generally regarded as not accurate; however, the other editors to the page are willing to be convinced if proof is available. Other editors have removed this user's edits for various reasons such as positioning of edit and reliability of content, user reverts without explanation.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Since this, user has placed several edits that would appear to be in bad faith as a result of the other reversions. Changing "village" to "city", changing the Scottish clans associated with the place, removing pronounciations, removing Gaidhlig equivalents. Normally, this behaviour would result in a vandalism warning.
			#
			#

	::He's continuing to vandalise, I don't see any constructive edits in his edit history. ] (] '''·''' ])</span> 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::There have been several subsequent reversions that would take too long to add.] (]) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::User has now progressed to article ]. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	{{AN3\|ab}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked, for 12 hours) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Maria Sharapova}}. {{3RRV\|Musiclover565}}: Time reported: 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			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) ==
	<!--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.-->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lindy Li}} <br />
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Napoleonjosephine2020}}

	*1st ~~revert~~:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*Diff of 3RR warning (1st):
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*Diff of 3RR warning (2nd):
	*7th revert:
	*8th revert:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] rewrote the article, after proposing his changes on the talk page (the previous version was widely seen as unencyclopedic). ] then reverted ]'s edits altogether (the new version was apparently too long for his liking. The user has been approached by four established editors. I have also left the user two 3RR warnings, both were ignored, cheers. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
			#
	:{{AN3\|b\|12 hours}} ] 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 55 hours.) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Las Vegas (TV series)}}. {{3RRV\|Bleek25}}: Time reported: 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!--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.-->

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st ~~revert~~:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*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)
	User insists on removing information from episodes and leaving it his way and no others' even after discussion took place on article talk page. ] (]) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:S/he's been reverting to his/her version all weekend even though there are two discussions going on on the talk page. I fixed this notice with the times for the reverts, there are more but they are over the entire weekend not just the past 24 hours. I also tried to discuss it on his page and just got told I hadn't watched the episode. ] (]) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
	::He reverted again this morning. He's determined to remove content others have put in several times. ] (]) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
	No violation; must have four edits in a twenty-four hour period to violate ]. · ] <sup>]</sup> 02:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::How is it that you don't see 5 edits? He had 5 between 23:04 on the 3rd and 21:21 on the 4th. How is that not a violation? Please explain so I understand because I was going to report him for his reverts. ] (]) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Right you are, sorry. <sup>I think I need to sleep more, it's really getting to me...</sup> · ] <sup>]</sup> 02:46, 6 February 2008 (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? ] (]) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours) ==
			::@]
			::"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)

			== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Oddworld}}. {{82.5.133.228}}: Time reported: 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			'''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:'''
	<!--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.-->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			#
			#
			#
			# (second IP)

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Continued adding of links even after disagreement by editors. A discussion is on the talk page. <font style="color:Blue;">'' ''']'''<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> ''</font> 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
	:*Blocked 24 hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no vio) ==

			'''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
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Las Vegas (TV series)}}. {{3RRV\|IrishLass0128}}: Time reported: 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			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)

	*
	*
	*
	*


	User has been deleting and putting there own information on the page.] (]) 00:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
	:'''Reply''' - only two of three of those are direct reverts. The first and second are a rewrite of what happened and actually could be considered one edit if I hadn't hit save page too quickly before reading exactly what I wrote, and, may I point out, there's no revision in between #1 and #2, therefore #2 cannot be a separate revert. I have not surpassed 3RR but am dangerously close. Regardless, it is obvious this report is out of spite over the fact that Bleek25 has over 6 reverts to the page, has received the appropriate warnings, been requested to discuss the matter, and still continues to revert twice now after the warning. An investigation will show, I have followed all guidelines while Bleek25 chooses to ignore them. ] (]) 13:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|nve}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Claymore_%28manga%29}}. {{3RRV\|70.54.1.78}}: Time reported: 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	User insists on having it his way. The publishers description of the manga/comic says it's shonen(instead of seinen), but user disagrees, saying: "Slipknot calls themself metal. It doesn't make them metal though, does it? Fuck." as seen at ] (]) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|ab}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Wonder Boys (film)}}. {{3RRV\|Arsonist's Daughter}}: Time reported: 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Even if this isn't today, a violation is a violation. <font style="color:Blue;">'' ''']'''<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> ''</font> 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|indefinite end}} - spam account/] as well. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
	:* Thank you! :) <font style="color:Blue;">'' ''']'''<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> ''</font> 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] (Result:Both users blocked) ==

	This user has been abusing a couple of times.

	*1st revert:

	*2nd revert:

	*3rd revert:

	*4th revert:

	Another Abuse was deleting evidence in a sockpuppetry case.

	*1st revert:

	*2nd revert:

	*3rd revert:

	*4th revert:

	*5th revert:

	*6th revert:

	Please solve this situation as efficiently as possible. Best regards--]] 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
	:As for the new case of sockpuppets against Durzatwink, see . The older version that he posted is deprecated, and I already got warned for that. ]]] 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I have blocked Styrofoam for 48 hours for various reasons, and Durza indefinitely as a sockpuppet of ] per the checkuser. ]<nowiki>\|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler}}. {{3RRV\|Rerom1}}: Time reported: 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
	* at 14:44, 4 February 2008,
	* at 22:04, 4 February 2008,
	* at 2:21, 5 February 2008
	* at 11:32, 5 February 2008

	* at 2:30, 5 February 2008 by ]
	There had been one of this kind before.

	A single purpose account is trying to change article content against the opinion of other users. ] (]) 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: no vio ) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns}}. {{3RRV\|76.87.47.110}}: Time reported: 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:
	*8th revert:
	*9th revert:
	*10th revert:

	This editor drops into this article everyday and does a wholesale revert of one of the lead paragraphs. He/she’s been doing it for some time. BTW, does this constitute longterm vandalism? ] (]) 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|nve}} --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week ) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Russian apartment bombings}}. {{3RRV\| Pietervhuis }}: Time reported: 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	Edit warring. User just came off a 24 hour block for edit warring no less than a couple of hours ago. ] (]) 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|1 week}} — Apparently he wasted no time in getting back to reverting people. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 15:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Rush (band)}}. {{3RRV\|Navnløs}}: Time reported: 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	This is about an heated, endless and inconclusive debate about whether line breaks or commas should be used to delimit genres in infoboxes (see ). In this case, editor is enforcing his preferred version rather harshly. Multiple reverts since middle of January. ~ <span style="color:#FF0000;font-weight:bold;">\| <small>]</small> \| <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> \|</span> ~ 23:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	Although I partly agree with Twsx (about the inconclusive issue) he has no right to report me. First of all yes, I was reverting someone on the Rush page because they were violating an armistice. I warned them about 3RR and edit warring ''first'' only to then be warned myself that I was violating both (utterly ridiculous since I'm only keeping up an agreed armistce to stop edit warring). Twsx also has no right to report me as he has been warned many times and is a known edit warrer who, until a couple days ago, has continued to edit war on at least two pages only to be reverted by me and others. I ''would'' like a definitive answer to the genre delimiter issue, but since one is not forthcoming, I protect pages and make sure that they stay in their form (whether its comma breaks or line breaks) so this: "editor is enforcing his preferred version rather harshly" is ridiculous. I ''do'' prefer line breaks but I try to keep ''all''pages they way they are (whether that be line breaks or comma breaks). I should not even have to defend myself against these claims but I have no choice as I have reported users like Twsx in the past only to be laughed at (since the editors thought the genre delimiter deabte trivial). I reall don't know what else to say. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I should add that ] has many many times over broken 3RR and that the 156-multiple-IP-user who I am having this issue with on Rush has also broken 3RR. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

	* {{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} – Multiple editors seemed to have a problem with the formatting changes, yet this user was the only one reverting them (presumably against consensus). For the record, an article won't get demoted from ] over such a minor formatting issue (honestly, I've seen both formatting methods on various pages), but it is more likely to get demoted for constant edit warring and instability. I also would, in the future, avoid using the term "armistice," since this encyclopedia is ], so there aren't any treaties. We work on ] and the ]— not military treaties set in stone. Consider using the talk page in the future. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Zoey 101}}. {{3RRV\|NrDg}}: Time reported: 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	This is a feud between, if Sean Flynn, is the part of the main cast (]) or not, which he isn't, because he is not suppose to be in anymore episodes of Season 4, till the end. And, NrDg keeps telling me that (s)he's getting info from ], which IMDB is not a reliable source, and theres no SOURCE. Also I warned the user, but that didn't seem to do anything and he reverted once again.
	:No violation; NrDg has only reverted 3 times. ]<nowiki>\|</nowiki><sup>]</sup> 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)



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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Douglas J. Feith}}. {{3RRV\|Bueller}}: Time reported: 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
	**(Note - there were some intermediate changes by an anon ip, but the material that Bueller keeps deleting is contained in ).

	<!--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.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert: (sequence of several edits)
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	I think the user should be blocked if he fails to heed the 3RR warning. If he self-reverts I do not think he should be blocked. But that is my opinion; I don't know what the usual practice is; he's been a user for 2 years and appears familiar enough with the rules. The fact that he has edited for two years as basically a single-purpose account may be relevant (he has mostly edited this article alone). ] (]) 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	:The edit war seems to have stopped and Bueller has not touched the page since the warning. It's customary to warn someone ''before'' reporting them. Closing with no action for now. ] (]) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	::So 4 reverts is OK then? Shouldn't bueller have self-reverted? Is it ok for me to revert him now (which would be my fourth revert)? Can an admin at least explain to bueller that he has violated the rule and that such action normally would lead to a block? The only reason he stopped reverting is because his last revert is the last change on the page. ] (]) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC) PS I did warn Bueller before reporting him. ] (]) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Explanation given.
	:::The intention given is that a warning should be given and ignored (i.e. a further revert made afterwards) before a relatively new user is reported and blocked. ] (]) 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Is two years still considered relatively new around here? I didn't even think a warning was necessary given the user seemed familiar with the rules but I gave one anyway just because I didn't want to seem punitive about it. Anyway I appreciate you commenting on his talk page; a warning from the person he's edit warring with is not nearly as likely to be heeded as a warning from an uninvolved admin. ] (]) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:24h block) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|AC/DC}}. {{3RRV\|74.77.222.188}}: Time reported: 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	* Previous version reverted to:

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

	'''Comment''' IP user has been edit warring across several articles over the past few weeks. Has a previous history of warnings and blocks.() Editor has also ignored ] and ] on both article talk pages and user talk pages. ] (]) 11:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	:User blocked 24 hours. ] (]) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked, 12 hours; parties cautioned) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Hedvig Malina}}. {{3RRV\|Svetovid}}: Time reported: 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning: , although he had already made a report himself.

	This user broke 3RR. These are his main reverts, but actually he deleted others' contributions many times during the day. Among others he is deleting text from the article and the references supporting them. He made controversial changes without discussion first.<br>
	On the 17th/18th of January he already broke 3RR at the article Trenčín without being reported, but this time he doesn't seem to stop. He called my 3RR warning 'inflammatory, rude' and a 'personal attack'. ] (]) 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Is the third revert a real revert? It seems more like expansion and the "fourth" revert is the real revert to this new version. That would make only three reverts in 24 hours. The edit war between Svetovid, Hobartimus, and Squash Racket appears to be over now anyway because the article is now listed in ] and users are engaged in a discussion on the article's talk page. But I might be too optimistic, of course. ] (]) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	::The third revert is just like the others and in fact he made way more disruptive edits in 24 hours than just four. ] (]) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Svetovid has engaged in disruptive behaviour, and it cannot be permitted to continue: the user is {{AN3\|blocked\|12 hours}} Additionally, I have issued a warning to Squash Racket, who was also engaging in edit warring, although admittedly to less a degree than that to which Svet. was. Hopefully all the parties can move on, and engage in meaningful discussion, with the aim of working towards a compromise, rather than disrupting the article.<br>] 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: semi-protected) ==

	*] violation on
	]. {{3RRV\|Momento}}: Time reported: 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Despite requests on user's talk page has not discussed issue and instead has performed multiple reverts. ] (]) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	::I repeatedly deleted ] inclusion of this article ]. as a violation of BLP. It has since been deleted on 21:20, 6 February 2008 by David D. (Talk \| contribs) (52,115 bytes) (→Media: this has nothing to do with the subject) (undo). Thanks.] (]) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	:::Observation from the sidelines: Both editors appear to be acting in good faith, although I am disturbed at the apparent bias displayed by Momento in zealously eliminating all traces of sourced and notable criticism of the subject. The criticism exists, it comes from notable sources such as ex-members of the organization, and respectable publications (books and newspapers) are available to back it up. Citing ] as a catch-all excuse for deleting criticism doesn't seem proper. If the criticism is valid (and it appears to be) then it should be included, with sources, and improved rather than deleted repeatedly. If it were me, I'd block both editors for a week so that others can make positive contributions to the article. =] (]) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Ex-members and tabloid newspapers are not suitable sources for a BLP when there are many noted sociologists and religious scholars to use. In this case The Register article is completely innappropriate.] (]) 00:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	::Speaking as someone with no involvement in this article: On the contrary, ex-members (especially an organized group of them) have a perspective and experience that sociologists and religious scholars sorely lack. When it comes to criticism, Momento appears to have a double standard regarding sources; is telling. Verifiability and reliability are sufficient; academic credentials aren't a requirement. Ex-members ''are'' verifiable and reliable sources for their own criticisms.
	::I see no need to continue this conversation further. I stand by my comment that both editors should be banned for a week, for violating 3RR. =] (]) 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::As the article has been semi-protected, apparently due to vandalism concerns, there's probably no block necessary, but I'll leave this up for a bit in case another admin disagrees. ] ] 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Shadow people}}. {{3RRV\|24.30.38.213}}: Time reported: 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	User received several warnings about adding unsourced editorial comments on ]. User doesn't appreciate warnings, and doesn't respond except to blank his talk page each time he receives a new warning. The reverts are somewhat under the radar for 4 reverts in 24 hours, but he's consistently reverting about 3 times per day. (Well, if you count his talk page blankings, he's reversion rate is above 4 per day.)

	"Last version reverted to" is dated later than 1st revert because of improvements people are attempting to make to the article while the reversion war continues. ] (]) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Although the first revert is different from the others, the anon is clearly edit warring. 24 hours. ] ] 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:no block) ==

	*] violation on
	. {{3RRV\|GeeAlice}}: Time reported: 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

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


	I've had to supply a url because the page in question is for an image, not an article. User is aware of 3RR because it's almost definitely a sockpuppet of banned , but also because I found a post where she mentions it . User:Jeeny had a history of disruption on Egypt-related articles, so it was only a matter of time before this was going to happen. I plan to file an RFCU. — ] 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
	:RFCU ]. — ] 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	This person is retaliating over a tag I placed for an image rename ] to Egyptian collage.jpg. I first had Egyptian people collage, but shortened it because of his revert, and rude edit summary. No communication from him, except for short rude comments. In fact, he is the one who kept reverting after I tried to explain the reason, and broke the 3RR rule. It is NOT an article, it is a tag to leave to the admin to decide if it is better to name it to the new, more DESCRIPTIVE name. That's all. ←]♥] 01:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I'm not willing to block because both users are edit warring. Of course, if it turns out that GeeAlice is an abusive sock, it will be fine to revert him/her again, but in the meantime, please don't edit war here. I'll be watching the page to make sure no one does. Thanks. ] ] 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:3 weeks) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|European Union}}. {{3RRV\|Lear 21}}: Time reported: 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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


	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	User Lear 21 has persistently edited this page agressively including violations of 3RR whenever the page is not to his liking. The page has twice been locked from editing over content disputes where Lear was the major party on one side of the dispute, and he engaged in multiple violation reverts. It is no more likely that locking the page for a third time will discourage lear from continuing this behaviour in the future than it has been thus far. Last time this happened I checked and noted policy that locking a page for a content dispute is discouraged. Perhaps some other action can be taken this time? ] (]) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	:User Lear 21 has not violated 3RR according to Misplaced Pages policies. The user has reestablished a consensus layout/section-heading already existing for more than half a year and is supported by several editors. User Lear 21 has argued for this consensus version at the talk page this time and is still supported by a majority. The accusing User Sandpiper and another user have instead developed a long history of disruptive editing vandalizing majority consensus at the EU article. Without gaining support of their proposals at the discussion forum. The listed 5 reverts are different edits and indicate no violation of any suggested policy. ] (]) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Quite the contrary. There is no requirement that all edits be the same in order for them to qualify: any four reverts, in whole or in part, count. More importantly, Lear is very clearly edit warring. This is to say, he is essentially attempting to force his version (the one saying "Economy") through by repeatedly reverting. Because of the rather long history he has with edit warring, I have blocked for three weeks. ] has also been edit warring, and therefore I have blocked for 24 hours (this being a first offence). ] ] 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	What policy justifies a 3 week block? All edits are clearly different, are backed at the talk page by the majority of editors and have argued in detail by myself !!!! I am merely upholding a consensus layout. There is clearly no violation. Please reconsider the decision. Lear 21<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I've answered you on my talk. I've also already told you how to contest your block. Now, please stop using IPs to get around the block. ] ] 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Dominion}}. {{3RRV\|Quizimodo}}: Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	A short explanation of the incident. ] (]) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	Removal of various POV tags that identify passages and sources currently being verified and discussed on talk page.
	:This report is not unexpected, rather limited in scope, and of course one-sided. This disruptive editor has been placing 'dubious' and 'neutrality' tags on various assertions in 'Dominion' that said editor disagrees with despite the sources fully conforming with Misplaced Pages policies (some accompanied by quotes) and with little justification, doing so without good faith or salient reason, and with misleading commentaries on the talk page. In essence, this editor is unable to compel through argument and/or sourcing, with similar behaviour going back to related edits on 'Canada' in Sep./Oct., and said placement of tags on selected notions herein is a ]. This editor has also initiated an ], without making salient attempts to seek mediation despite claims -- again, a hyper-reaction. As per my request on the RfA page and as a result of said editor's continual dickery, I hereby request the 'Dominion' article be locked until further notice. Moreover, since it takes two to tango, any administrative actions taken against me (and I may have violated 3RR) should be exacted upon Soulscanner too. I contend this report is arguably an attempt to quell opposition. In any event, I hereby pledge to refrain from edit warring on this article, and to not be drawn into additional edit wars with this editor. ] (]) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:It's customary to warn people and give them a final chance before reporting them here. As Quizimodo was not warned and has agreed to stop edit warring, I am not going to block on this occasion. Soulscanner did not violate 3RR, stopping before the fourth revert. ] (]) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Dominion}}. {{3RRV\|Soulscanner}}: Time reported: 04:47, 7 February 2008

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
	*1st revert: 04:40, 6 February 2008
	*2nd revert: 03:20, 7 February 2008
	*3rd revert: 03:37, 7 February 2008
	*4th revert: 03:47, 7 February 2008
	*5th revert: 04:01, 7 February 2008

	*Diff of 3RR warning: No warning issued, but as this user reported ] above, he's obviously aware of 3RR.

	A short explanation of the incident. A brief inspection of ] and ] talk page histories, and patterns of reverts above show that two cited editors are colluding to remove neutrality tags placed by me on that page. I've already pointed them to Wiki's policy that if there is a dispute about neutrality tags on an article, there probably is a neutrality issue. ]'s pledge above seems somewhat disingenuous given this context. Again, tags in question identify pertinent claims and sources currently being debated by various editors at ]. ] (]) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Quizimodo hasn't contacted me for months. Since he did yesterday, I've taken one look at ], and offered a comment at talk. That's hardly collusion; perhaps you need to tone down the conspiracy theories? Regardless, I believe you've violated 3RR, in the process of an antagonistic edit war, no less. But, we shall let more experienced people be the judge. --] (]) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Folded into the above report. ] (]) 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Later protected for a week by me. ] (]) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Canada}}. {{3RRV\|G2bambino}}: Time reported: 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	A short explanation of the incident. The pattern here is clear. In this old edit war the editors in question replaced a number of descriptors for Canada (federation, federal state, etc.) with words containing the word Dominion. ] would continue the edit war stopped by ] when informed of violating 3RR rule. This is over the same content issue as the current ] article, and the same pattern is employed. I do not wish to be drawn into a similar edit war in the case above, but I do not want relevant neutrality tags removed in the case above either. I did not put this 3RR violation here before because it was the first time I'd seen it, and made a request to pp-dispute lock on the page, which was granted and made the 3RR report unnecessary. Please see link to . ] (]) 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Multiple users edit warring - page protected for a week. ] (]) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	::I haven't bothered to check the validity of the report, but really, bringing up something from ''four months ago''? Truly, what more can this be than retaliation for my report against Soulscanner above? --] (]) 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	==]==
	] has degenerated into an editwar and requires an admin to step in. Various parties have abused the 3R rule. FWIW ] (]) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC).
	:Please use the report template at the bottom of this page to make reports. ] (]) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Kawasaki KLR650}}. {{3RRV\|Guest2610}}: Time reported: 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	User keeps adding links that do not meet ] and are ], including discussion forums and multiple links to the same websites. ] (]) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Users only edits are to that one page; blocking for 48 hours with a strong warning. ] (]) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	==User EBDCM==

	Multiple reverts. Report by ] (]) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:Please use the report template at the bottom of the page if you would like your report acted on. ] (]) 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	:For the record EBDCM has made several edits in a row, some of which are reverts. This is not edit-warring and the sequence of edits counts as one revert for 3RR purposes. ] (]) 10:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Homebrewing}}. {{3RRV\|Ó Flannagáin}}: Time reported: 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous 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.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Re-adding of inappropriate external links; 9 times since 4 Feb, 2 of them as ]. ] (]) 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Blocked for 24 hours. ] (]) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Perineal raphe}}. {{3RRV\|ScrotalRaphe}}: Time reported: 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	User ] has decided that a large number of articles need a photo of his genitals. He has violated the 3RR on ] and is well on the way towards doing so on ], ], and ]. Suggestions that he discuss his additions on the talk pages of the articles have, thus far, been fruitless. ] (]) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
	*Jayron32 beat me to the indef block. Nandesuka, I don't think anyone would have objected if you had just blocked him yourself. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

	= Example =
	<pre>


	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
	=== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ===

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

	<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

	</pre>

	== See also ==

	* ]
	* – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

Latest revision as of 23:33, 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)
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. Mei23448 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. Mei23448 (talk) 21:24, 23 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)

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:

(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)

Categories: