Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:56, 26 November 2008 editLihaas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users77,615 edits →Lihaas reported by Moni3 (Result: ): remove distorted picture of pre and post consensus edits← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:24, 27 December 2024 edit undoToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,495 edits →User:103.84.130.238 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: ): Page protected (using responseHelper) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
{{noadminbacklog}}
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
<noinclude>
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
]
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 85 |counter = 490
|algo = old(72h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude> }}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
__TOC__


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
<!--
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PaleoFile}}
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.
-->


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by ]) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.
#
#
#
#


{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}


Time reported: 2:48 AM


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
<!-- The link above must be to a version, not a diff, and must be from BEFORE all the
reverting took place. This helps us establish that the first edit, in particular, is a
revert to a previous version.
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:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide 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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Diff of 3RR warning:
*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)
*{{ping|ToBeFree}} The problem persists, ] and ] continue their edit war / vandalism on both pages. --] (]) 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you very much for the notification, {{u|Jens Lallensack}}. Both blocked indefinitely, the latter unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. ] (]) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
:{{AN3|note}}: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of ]. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) <small>— <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span></small>


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


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


*User: {{userlinks|195.210.193.210}}
*Warning diff:
*Vandalized page: ]


This IP has reverted a legitimate reference source four (4) times so far: , . , ; for no apparent reason other than that its language is German instead of the English or the Russian used in the other references. I came accross these edits on patrol on issues in languages and linguistics. I have checked out the legitimacy of the contested reference.


This user is also engaged in blanking historically attested alternate names for this language. ] (]) 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:2 reverts in last 24h, none subsequent to your warning, no discussion by anyone on the talk page ] (]) 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::This user also operates under {{userlinks|195.210.193.37}} and {{userlinks|195.210.193.238}}. ] (]) 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:::The ] page ended up ]. A cursory check-up on the anon. reveals that he has a long history of vandalizing the ] page where he has been accused of sock puppetry. He is using the whole range of 195.210.193.x (where x stands for a number between 1 and 254), thus avoiding getting blocked. He is also active on other Turk related pages, always with an anti-Turkic/anti-Turkish/pro-Russian stance dismissing opponent opinions as propaganda. The IP address 195.210.193.x points to a location in Ljubljana (Slovenia) operated by the ISP TELEKOM SLOVENIJE D.D. Something should be done about him. ] (]) 09:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
He came back as soon as the protection expired, so we either protect this and all other pages he edits until he tires of his crusade against "false information" (evidently a dictionary he doesn't like), or we deal with him as an edit warrior. He's also blanking the discussion page of any mention of him. He is not a sock AFAIK, just using a variable IP address. I've been blocking the addresses as he uses them, but that's rather pointless. Do we protect the discussion page as well?? ] (]) 11:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* Page: editor performing massive edits despite an ongoing dispute (, ], more discussion on the dispute at ])
* User: {{userlinks|Date delinker}}
** Account operated by: {{userlinks|Ohconfucius}}


Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* 1st edit:
* 2nd edit:
* 3rd edit:
* 4th edit:


: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)
* Diff of dispute warning:
::@]
::"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: Page already protected) ==
*This editor has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chose to enforce their POV by performing massive edits to hundreds of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere '''sampling''' of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of ], it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of ]. I believe this does however meet ], especially if you read the first section:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
{{"|Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.|]}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}
and
{{"|Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.|]}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
—] • ] • ] 22:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:The bot has seemingly stopped delinking dates, so no use blocking it; however, I'll make Ohnoconfucius aware of this discussion for his input. ] ] 23:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
#
#
#
# (second IP)


::Also, this may be a subject better covered at ]. ] ] 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


::He's performing these edits (or at least, that was the original reason for his unblock) so the Bot owners' noticeboard wouldn't really apply. —] • ] • ] 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


::*This complaint is just part of a campaign mounted by certain users against anyone who dares to do anything which they disagree with, and includes various types of ] such as ] our talk pages, reporting us to ]. I refuse to submit to the bullying of to get what they want. No, I do not use a bot, and have been cleared of such. It can be see from ], the ], and what is actually being changed that I am executing the policy of removing ] in articles. I may also be changing date formats to ones agreed upon for country-specific subjects. No-one has validly pointed out in what way my edits are in breach of any relevant policies and guidelines. Whatever "warnings" have been issued to me by certain individuals are founded on ], and policy- and guidelines- 'wishful thinking'. I believe previous dismissal of complaints they have made against other editors performing similar tasks, and the decision here not to take action against me are sufficient vindication. ] (]) 23:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:::*This is really quite simple and I fail to see how you can't understand it: Misplaced Pages operates on consensus. The present wording at ] is disputed and currently going through an RFC. You have been asked to stop performing these disputed edits until the situation is resolved (at the end of the RFC). You have chosen not to. This is edit warring. It is disruption. It's violating a previous ArbCom decision with regards to forcing your changes during an ongoing dispute. Whatever else you may think of me, my actions or whomever does '''not change these singular truths'''. There is no excuse to continue making disputed and disruptive edits especially when you're aware of the ongoing dispute. —] • ] • ] 00:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::::*You are trying to pick off your opponents one at a time. You failed with ] and you have also failed here, so why don't you quit while you are ahead! ;-) I am inclined to tell you to do something to yourself which is physically impossible, but I realise behavioural guidelines prevents me from doing this, so take "GO AWAY" as the ] response. God spede, Ohconfucius/] (]) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Hopefully anyone following this will note you've failed to address my statement as to which policies and guidelines you are violating by performing these edits. Hopefully they will further note that you don't appear to be agreeing to stop but rather seem to be taking joy in bringing disruption to hundreds of articles. —] • ] • ] 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:::*Also, it would be a misunderstanding of the situation to suggest that simply because you weren't blocked that it's a "vindication". You were spared because you "seemed to have stopped", not because what you were doing wasn't a violation of policy. —] • ] • ] 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::::*Ohconfucius: please stop with the ad hominem. Attacking Locke due to his block log or whether he's out to get you or not is not the purpose here. If there isn't consensus on changing something, do not use your other account (I thought it was a bot but that has been clarified now) to change it anyway. Oh, and stop it with the incivility. I'm not blocking anyone now but that can change if you keep putting out veiled insults. ] ] 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::Oh, and I'm not vindicating anything you've done. I didn't block your account (just to be clear, your main account would be blocked in this case as you are the one facilitating the content dispute, not the alt account) because it stopped disputed activities. This doesn't mean it can continue; sort this out first. ] ] 03:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
This user has resumed his disruptive date delinking activities, in contravention of this edit warring case and . See, for example, his edits to the following articles: , , , , , and . See this user's .
Not only has this user resumed the disruptive edits, he is using AWB to make clearly controversial edits in violation of the . See . ] (]) 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not participate in reverts. Warned first IP on their own talk page
**Three things: Firstly, someone's being a nasty little ] here. I'm not deliberately delinking dates, I'm '''primarily''' cutting down overlinking, and putting all dates into dmy format for certain category of articles. E&OE, there are no cases of deliberate date-delinking going on. Secondly, the RfC is well under way, and is headed for a landslide against Cole's side. Following his inexcusable attempt to bury Tony's RfC, I assert that Cole is totally lacking in ] (and has been from the very start). Thirdly, mine is an AWB account approved within the last 10 days. In my application, attention was drawn to my ]. I am certain that if the mission was considered 'unacceptable', they would have flagged it or blocked my application. They did not: ] '']''. ] (]) 09:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Since my last post here, ] (the owner of the ] single-purpose account) has continued to engage in large amounts of date delinking activities. See, for example, his edits to the following articles: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . There are undoubtedly many other articles affected by his date delinking activities given the . ] (]) 10:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I don't see where this is a case of simple edit warring, and this page is not intended as a battleground. If there's a bot issue, take it there. Better yet, allow the RfC to continue, and if it supports undoing the edits, do so. Regardless, I don't see any issue here that a simple administrative intervention is going to solve. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a stating {{tq|I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here.}}, and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. {{userlinks|CipherRephic}} was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop after being warned and has not broken 3RR. ] | ] 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
:Did you actually look at how ] (MOP) has been dealing with this issue before you posted? If so, are you saying that MOP (an administrator) is wrong and should be overturned in favor of your opinion? ] (]) 11:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Marc Benioff}}
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} I made it specific that "any editor that is involved in the process of date-delinking and -linking will be subject to a block by an administrator." I do find the recent mass edits (from the 24th and back) to be ], although the edits are schemed to convert the American date scheme to the British date scheme. There is this blip regarding the British/English dates that can be found at ]:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|99.98.190.59}}
{{cquote|...with respect to British date formats as opposed to American it would be acceptable to change from American format to British if the article concerned a British subject. Edit warring over optional styles (such as 14 February and February 14) is unacceptable...}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
It seems though that this account has been engaging in not only the conversion of the formats, which is not the issue here, but has been en mass. You know very well there is a RFC ongoing, and that another will soon occur, and that those RFCs have not run their course yet. You are also well aware of the numerous AN/ANI/AN3 threads that have been ongoing regarding this controversial issue. Because of that, I have blocked for a period of 24 hours. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==
# {{diff2|1265027253|18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265009969|16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1264902002|03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1264865734|23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* Page: {{article|2008 South Ossetia war<!-- Place name of article here -->}}
# {{diff2|1265024674|18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
* User: {{userlinks|Elysander<!-- Place name of user you are reporting here -->}}
# {{diff2|1265033023|18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|1265024924|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dune: Part Two}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
# {{diff2|1265161751|12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
* Diff of 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|1265079289|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1265038799|19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1264974672|12:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
] has been warned more than once about 3RR. He very rarely ever gives a viable reason in the edit summary for his reverts other than the fact that he believes his version to be the "stable" version. Although he can change the article in which case his changes become the new stable version. He also accuses people he disagrees with of making . ] (]) 04:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265079184|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
# {{diff2|1265080757|00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
: 24h for E and I ] (]) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265080353|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] (result: warned) ==


User continues edit warring and doesn't discuss edits even after having been requested to, not even explaining their reversions in their edit summary. ] (]) 13:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
] is a new user, like me, and is not responding to requests to stop removing my content from ]. I am attempting to add a well cited *Legal History* section to the article and requests for citations. The new section has had a Third opinion and mostly all of the recommendations were implemented with the exception of once which was not relevant since the information it requested was clear in the context of the article, but the review read the addition out of context. I have warned the user just now about the 3 reverts rule and have reverted the vandalism, putting me in violation of the 3RR myself. Please advise. I'm trying to play by the rules
:{{u|ChasePlowman2014}} is completely unresponsive. I hope they try editing during the 2 weeks of their block and notice that they have a talk page. ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
**Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the ] explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
**:{{u|Jasca Ducato}}, this isn't about the time taken to respond to the noticeboard report. {{u|ChasePlowman2014}} isn't using edit summaries nor talk pages and ignores warnings on their talk page about their behavior. ] (]) 04:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
] (]) 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Callmehelper}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
: Presumed newbie, warned ] (]) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


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


* Page: ] is performing massive edits despite an ongoing dispute (, , ], more discussion on the dispute at ]).
* User: {{userlinks|Lightmouse}}


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


* Diff of dispute warnings: ,


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*] has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chosen to enforce his POV by performing massive edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (note contributions, the five diffs above are but a mere '''sampling''' of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of ], it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of ]. I believe this does, however, meet ], especially if you read the first section:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
{{"|Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.|]}}
and
{{"|Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.|]}}


*Not only is ] making these disruptive edits, he is using AWB to make clearly controversial edits in violation of the , which he has also been . '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


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


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


— ] (]) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC) == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Angelo Rules}} <br />
:{{AN3|note}} The admin who chooses to review this should see ], where the general dispute recently received extensive administrative attention. ] (<small>]</small>) 12:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnny test person}}
::That discussion was largely sabotaged by an admin who not only blocked an editor but proceeded to engage in assisting pushing the other sides POV. Obviously the more background information people have on this the better, but hopefully nothing there will be used to excuse this disruptive behavior (when most people seem to be trying to help with the RFC). —] • ] • ] 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|note}} See also: ], ]. And note two other reports by Locke Cole above, both of which were closed as no vio. You should really choose your wording more carefully LC; I was the blocking administrator and I failed to see how I "sabatogued" the extensive edit warring on both sides. In fact, and I've asked this three times already and have yet to receive a response (outside of "look in the archives"), but can you provide a link to a page that states consensus towards keeping the date-links? <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 13:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
::Seicer you misrepresent things: the admin (Master of Puppets) of the '''Date delinker''' report above was quite clear that the only reason he took no action was because the editor appeared to have stopped. It wasn't a "no vio" as you claim... —] • ] • ] 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
Somewhere up above, I said ''Hmm, OK, from it seems quite clear that TE, LC, D87 and 2O are indulging in edit warring. appears to confirm this. I can't see any reason to single out D87. It is clear that the issue should be settled on the MOS talk page and that no further linking/unlinking should be done till that discussion is settled on way or the other ] (]) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)'' and I can't see any reason to revise that. Its not clear why Lightmouse's edits don't fall into the same category. Furthermore Lightmouse does appear to be in breach of the use conditions on AWB. This needs to be sorted out at ] or ] oe whereever ] (]) 15:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:{{AN3|note}} (e.c.) I'm sorry that the time of admins and others is going to be wasted here; this is part of a political campaign by several users at MOSNUM talk to threaten and bully those who work to have articles comply with community decisions that date autoformatting be no longer used and that date fragments not be linked (a battle that was resolved quite some time ago). Several users, among them Tennis expert and Cole, have been waging a war of intimidatory notices on talk pages, stalking, edit-warring and loud complaint. They are few in number, but make up for this in their loudness. They seem to be picking off users they disagree with one by one and taking such quasi-legal action as this, without success thus far. I can provide evidentiary links on request. ] ] 15:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


If anyone is interested in the AWB guidelines, please note the following two extensive discussions on this topic ] and ]. The discussion included but was not limited to contributions by Tennis expert and Locke Cole. ] (]) 15:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
: The guidelines are fairly clear: '''''Don't do anything controversial with it'''. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding.'' You are very clearly doing something controversial. Everyone else seems prepared to wait for the RFC (no?); you should too ] (]) 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] and ]
I would be happy to see a debate on ANI as to whether date delinking is a breach of AWB guidelines. But it would be a duplication of a previous debate within the AWB jurisdiction itself i.e. ] and ]. The outcome was that date delinking is not a breach of AWB guidelines. There is nothing to stop ANI duplicating AWB debates about AWB guidelines or finding another guideline that wasn't mentioned in the first debate. But it seems to me that if ANI is discussing a challenge under AWB guidelines, we need to go back to AWB and tell them they made a wrong decision. ] (]) 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
: Doing controversial things is a violation of AWB guidelines. If date delinking is controversial, and it is, then date de-linking is a violation. Previous discussions about "inconsequential" seem... inconsequential. I don't see why it should go on ANI. Please join everyone else in waiting for the RFC ] (]) 18:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
:*Is something controversial when one person stands up and shouts loudly in protest, or is two three or four enough? There are only 2 people standing on rooftops, jumping and waving flags, and I totally disagree that that is sufficient to make something controversial. ] (]) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I am confused. The AWB people said date delinking is an acceptable use of AWB. If the AWB decision was wrong because they forgot about the 'controversial' guideline then they need to be told of their error. I certainly don't think that date delinking is controversial despite vocal disagreement from editors like Tennis Expert and Locke Cole. If a challenge is to be made under AWB guidelines then the AWB people need to be told that their original decision is being looked at again. ] (]) 19:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* Mine is an AWB account approved within the last 10 days. In my application, attention was drawn to my ]. I am certain that if the mission was considered 'unacceptable', they would have flagged it or blocked my application. They did not: ] '']''. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
{{admin-note}} Since all editors have been notified in some fashion or another, and since this has gone on long enough at ]/]/] with three reports that were all closed at one point or another, if there are any further de-linkings or linkings by Tennis Expert, Locke Cole, Lightmouse, or other involved editors, they will be blocked for a period of 24 hours. Gain consensus for this at the RFC, not by revert-warring. Furthermore, I suggest that all editors involved refrain from posting on each others talk pages; some of the comments generated on both sides is nonconstructive and unhelpful. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
:'''Comment''' I find it a regrettable and lamentable pronunciation - To grant what is effectively an injunction to delinking is capitulation to two loud bullies. We are just doing my bit to tidy up WP in accordance with guideines. ] (]) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Grail Movement}}
:{{AN3|note}} (e.c.) TE's complaint above cited certain 'problematic edits': However, it would appear that the problems relate more to the incorrect date formats which litter WP. He complained about 5 here and another 5 on LM's talk page,which I have analysed as follows:
** 1st edit: was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout
** 2nd edit: the date link in was in the reference or ] section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
** 3rd edit: was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout
** 4th edit:
** 5th edit:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Folawiki}}
:In ] TE also warned about certain 'problematic edits'. It's the same story as above, I have analysed those cited as follows:
# was incorrectly date-formatted - the essential delimiting comma was missing in the original text throughout;
# refers to Dutch Football, and was correctly converted by LM to dmy;
#the date link in was in the reference or ] section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.
#the date link in was in the reference or ] section below, and 200% validly removed because they have no incidence on the interpretation of the text at all.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:These cases, chosen apparently at random to illustrate the 'offenses committed' by Lightmouse are actually symptomatic of the lack of consistency between articles, and clearly illustrates the important work LM is performing to effect compliance with ]. It also illustrates the ] being perpetrated by the complainant in concert with ] whether in terms of edit-warring, ] or other actions against all who disagree with their stance. ] (]) 02:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: user warned) ==
# {{diff2|1265465790|02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265465049|02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265464033|02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265459461|01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* Page: {{article|Fibromyalgia}}
# {{diff2|1265461000|01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
* User: {{userlinks|Dr. Anymouse}}
# {{diff2|1265464521|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* December 2024 */ ] notice"
# {{diff2|1265464576|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]."
# {{diff2|1265465123|02:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1265464764|02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "{{re|Folawiki}} The whitewashing has to stop. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"


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


Cult whitewashing. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
* Diff of 3RR warning:
*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


] (]) 18:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC) == ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Trisha Krishnan}}
{{AN3|w}} There is no evidence that user was aware of the rule before this report was posted. I have reverted the user's post 3RR violation edits, warned the user of the rule and for the significant incivility on his page towards Dlabtot. ] (<small>]</small>) 18:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TheHappiestEditor}}
== ] reported by ] (Result:no vio) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* Page: ] is performing numerous edits despite an ongoing dispute (, ], more discussion on the dispute at ]).
* User: {{userlinks|Colonies Chris}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* 1st edit:
# {{diff2|1265432813|22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
* 2nd edit:
# {{diff2|1265165246|13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."
* 3rd edit:
* 4th edit:


*Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
* Diff of dispute warning:
#
#
#


#
*] has been warned that there is an ongoing dispute about the issue of unlinking of dates and has chosen to enforce his POV by performing massive edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles (note contributions, the four diffs above are but a mere '''sampling''' of the damage being done). The RFC has not even gotten to a stage where voting could begin and this editor is refusing to join the discussion and instead force their changes on the rest of us. Even if this does not meet the strict definition of ], it most surely meets the more forgiving definition of ]. I believe this does, however, meet ], especially if you read the first section:


# - putting fake sources/infomation
{{"|Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.|]}}
# - putting fake sources/infomation
and
# - putting fake sources/infomation
{{"|Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.|]}}


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*Not only is ] making these disruptive edits, he is using AWB to make clearly controversial edits in violation of the . See .
#


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*See also .


*] has made it clear that he intends to continue these disruptive edits. He said earlier today,


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*My notification of ] about this edit warring case can be found .


POV pushing/cherry-picking "Malayalam" and edit warring in a lot of articles. Apart from the above listed, the user has been pushing "Malayalam" as one of the languages in which "actor XYZ" has acted 'predominantly' in but in actuality the entries are only a few . The editor has received multiple warnings for being disruptiove and a recent one for from {{u|Krimuk2.0}}. - ] (]) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 00:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


:{{u|TheHappiestEditor}}, please respond to these allegations. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{admin-note}} Since this is the ''fourth'' reported incident regarding date de-linking/linking, and the three were given no-vios, I've given Colonies Chris a warning and any further de-linking will result in a block. This applies to all involved in the AN/ANI/EW disputes; further edit warring will result in a block. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
:Fourth incident, yes. But reported by the same two ] acting in concert. Take that as you will. ] (]) 03:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|103.84.130.238}}
::A content dispute is a content dispute. Putting down the other side isn't going to change that. Anyway, let's not (de)link anymore until this whole mess is over. Sound good? ] ] 08:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:::I come here to find that while I was sleeping I have been accused, judged, found guilty, warned and threatened with a block, all without any chance for me to reply. I will repeat that all my edits have been in line with the MoS. Tennis Expert and a very small number of others who don't like this part of the MoS have been trying to obstruct its implementation by repeatedy relinking dates (in clear violation of the MoS), harrassing editors and claiming that there is 'controversy' and 'no consensus', and going around putting official-looking warnings on the talk pages of editors who continue date delinking. And their obsessive relinkings have been supported by who else? No-one else. In fact, many other editors - including several who have not been involved in the autoformatting discussions, to preempt any accusations of there being an unlinking 'cabal' - have also unlinked dates in those articles (you might like to look at the edit history for any of the tennis articles that TE has repeatedly reverted), in an apparent attempt to overcome the disruption that TE was causing. Is there controversy, or just a lot of noise from a couple of very vocal opponents? I have hard evidence. In the month of October, I edited around 8000 articles; of these I estimate some 70% involved some form of date delinking. And how many editors complained to me about it? Six. About one in a thousand. Does that indicate that delinking is controversial, or does it indicate that there are just a couple of very noisy and determined people who won't accept that policy has changed? Tennis Expert did not mention that his earlier attempt to get me banned from using AWB was rejected. At least he has learned some civility - at that time, he took action against me behind my back, without even bothering to notify me. It is outrageous that I should be threatened with a block for implementing Wikpedia's own agreed Manual of Style. Both Tennis Expert and Locke Cole should be warned for harassing editors who are quietly trying to make this a better encyclopaedia for our readers, ''in full compliance with its own rules''. If they don't like the MoS, they have a right to try to get it changed. And if they succeed, I will comply with the new rules, but until then I comply with the rules as they stand. I ask the admins to withdraw entirely unjustified warning and the threat of a block. ] (]) 08:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::::Misplaced Pages is ]. Firstly, you don't have definite statistics on who supports this and who doesn't; the RFC is still ongoing. Secondly, if some editors have issues with something then you discuss it. Anyway, clearly the MoS isn't agreed on if this is happening. I appreciate that you are passionate on the delinking of dates but please respect the terms laid down until this is all over or then it starts raining blocks and generally unhappy things take place. Can you agree to wait this out? ] ] 08:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff|oldid=1262480024|diff=1265542339|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1265541681|12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|1265542339|12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia "
#
#
#
#
#
#
#


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::::Oh, and a note; edit warring is unacceptable, whether policy backs you or not. ] ] 08:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
#
#


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:::::I have not been edit warring, despite TE's contrived attempt to allege that. Please withdraw that statement. I have simply been making edits in line with the MoS that TE does not like. Also, TE's statement that I have 'refused to participate in discussion' is completely untrue. I have been very much involved in the discussion, as my edit history on ] etc. shows. And TE's suggestion that I am trying to 'enforce my POV' is nonsense. In the first place, POV has nothing to do with it, this is a disagreement about formatting, not content, amd in the second place the MoS is clear - autoformatting is deprecated. There's no room for 'POV' claims on that. Threatening to block me or other editors for implementing the MoS opens the door to any disruptive editor who's prepared to kick up a fuss to get their own way. ] (]) 09:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


::::::Yeah, well... once again, having multiple editors agree with you does not give you free reign over any article because "policy says so". If users object, they object. If you continue to edit against their wishes, that is edit warring. Oh, and yes, he did accuse you of that. See this (this response probably doesn't make sense, editor changed previous post ):
{{"|Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute.|]}}
::::::I'm not up for arguing pointlessly over what edit warring is or who is right. There is a dispute here; stop the contested edits. Your understanding is greatly appreciated. Cheers, ] ] 09:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:::::::Let me make the situation a little clearer. I am a gnoming editor. I make small changes to a large number of articles, on any subject. I rarely touch the same article twice. It is therefore significant that only a very small number of editors have objected, Tennis Expert being by far the most vocal of them. In cases where an editor has objected, I have explained my reasons to them, and then left the article alone. What's different here is that TE's objections are not limited to the articles he has an interest in, he's trying to stop me doing this at all, even to articles where no-one objects. And my experience is that in 999 cases out of 1000, no-one objects. And I'm now about to go to work, so I won't be communicating or doing anything else on WP again until this time tomorrow. ] (]) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
You're exactly right; he dislikes the edits themselves, not the articles in questions. So as long as the edits stop, all will be well. Have a fun day at work! ] ] 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a warning, but was to report it here. - ] (]) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result:Indefinitely blocked) ==
:So children, what have we learned today? We've learned that if you don't like what other people have decided, you just have to disrupt things by making lots of noise and repeatedly reverting other editors' work and complaining that they're all against you and making accusations in every available forum, and reverting their attempts to discuss anything on your talk page whilst accusing them - untruthfully - of not discussing things; and in a while a kind administrator will come along and give you what you want by stopping the nasty men from doing all those horrible things that are so upsetting you. And why? Because it's causing so much disruption! This administrator action sets an extraordinarily bad precedent ] (]) 20:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Angelo Rules}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: already blocked 24h ) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnny test person}}
*] violation on {{Article|Slipknot (band)}}. {{3RRV|Melkortheevil}}: Time reported: 02:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1265621270|21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1265402736|19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 3rd revert:
# {{diff2|1265399005|19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 4th revert:
# {{diff2|1265395466|18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265394604|18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


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


'''Comment''' ] has already been warned for edit warring and has chosen to ignore the warning. In the past two days he has reverted the Slipknot article 8 times and appears to be a single purpose pov account. ] (]) 02:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*{{AN3|ab}} --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 06:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*] violation on
{{Lt|Infobox University Chancellor}}. {{3RRV|Jamesontai }}: Time reported: 03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (]) ] (]) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''
* {{AN3|b| indef}} Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 253326080 by ] (]) image width for infoboxes are generally 225px. please don't change it. go2talk page?")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted to revision 253327072 by ]; Please do not undo my edit until you discuss this at ].. using ]")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted to revision 253408157 by ]; As I've said many times, please review this on ]. Further revisions of my edits will begin to be considered to be vandalism.. using ]")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ]; I have already expressed my views on this issue on the edit summary. Any further revisions by emerson7 will now be considered as vandalism. See ].. using ]")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ] identified as ] to last revision by ]. using ]")</small>

* Diff of warning:

*{{AN3|n}} &ndash; Are you two seriously edit warring over&mdash; ''25 pixels?'' Are 25 pixels seriously worth an edit war? Would the encyclopedia collapse and be lost forever if 25 pixels were either added or removed? I mean, it's not even a penis or something where size would matter anyway. Since you are both otherwise productive, rational, civil editors, I'll assume a solar flare or something else is interfering with your brainwaves, thereby somehow remotely causing this and do something I rarely do. You both have exactly two choices:
*# You both get blocked for ] and this entire ordeal is subsequently added to our ], or
*# You both make use of ] or other ], while I reserve full ] rights, even though I probably won't use them, because of how silly an edit war over 25 pixels is.
:The choice is yours. Continued edits to the page by either of you over any of that content without showing clear attempts at ] will likely get both editors blocked. Also, please avoid attempting to justify your actions; you are both automatically and horribly in the wrong for one reason and one reason alone: 25 pixels.

:...and would you please make that redlink for the template's talk page disappear? Thanks.

: --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 06:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|c}} (conflict here, was going to post a warning and protection result) Frivolous fight over the format of a template. Reporting user behaving no better than reported user, but both contributors have good records, and it would be a shame to block them over this one dispute. ] (<small>]</small>) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|c}} The only thing I've asked this editor to do, was discuss the changes the 25 pixels would do to the articles. This article concerns BLPs, which stretching/shrinking the 25 pixels could make a difference (by making a person's face seem fatter/slimmer). I've really done this by the book here. I've asked the editor to comment to ] or ]. Since this template does effect many articles, a simple explanation of what exactly this will do to the other articles should not have been that hard to type out. I've posted on the template's talk page, WikiProject Universities' talk page, and have extensively commented my point of view on this issue on my user talk page. All I've asked for was an explanation, and since I did not get that response, I honestly cannot assume that this editor's intentions were honorable, which resulted in the reverts I have made. I have no intentions of creating or participating in an edit war. I personally recommend to have the template reverted to how it was before, have WikiProject Universities look at ''if'' this change is feasible or necessary, and move on from there - therefore taking myself and Emerson7 out of this process. ] <sup>''<font color="#660000">] ♦ ] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 06:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::I also support protecting the template until ] has the chance to review it as well. ] <sup>''<font color="#660000">] ♦ ] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 06:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:::And one more thing, I think what I've done is the textbook definition of trying to reach ], hence, not an edit war necessarily. Trying to get an editor to discuss his edit should not be considered edit warring. ] <sup>''<font color="#660000">] ♦ ] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 06:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Clearly didn't see the part where I stated, "'''Also, please avoid attempting to justify your actions; you are both automatically and horribly in the wrong for one reason and one reason alone: 25 pixels.''', but if you wish to ignore that, I can help clarify:
::::# His edits clearly ,
::::# In my opinion, you ''told'', not ''asked'' the other editor to do something () by calling disagreement vandalism, and
::::# You also appear to (or at the very least twinkle without using rollback) in what was clearly a content dispute&mdash; not vandalism.
::::Page protection, although another admin added it, shouldn't be needed for something like this. In fact, I'm wondering why I'm still even typing this. You both know what you need to do: ], talk page, or pick a ] step. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
]]]
:::::Well, having ] look at it (which I made that request days ago) was essentially my attempt at ]. But look, I don't want to drag this out any further, I'm not touching that template page. ] <sup>''<font color="#660000">] ♦ ] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|c}} in all fairness--and in weak defense--i made several attempts at dialog with user:james l. tai, on his talk page where i pointed out that my edits were minor, and asked him for his specific objections. i regret not also posting to the article's talk, and not considering the toxic effects to wikipedia and endangered small fuzzy wildlife. ''mea culpa''. --] 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|c}} So... what now? We've stopped editing - do we agree to have 3rd parties look at this? And stop calling me James (both of you)... that's not my name. -_- ] <sup>''<font color="#660000">] ♦ ] ♦ ]''</font></sup> 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust}}
* User: {{userlinks|Radeksz}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

This editor is making repeated ongoing reversions of ] material for days, despite consensus that its improper; see e.g., opinion offered ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:24 hours. Might be slightly more than 24 hours apart, but the user is clearly (by his/her own edit summary) aware of 3RR and is acting disruptively. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

::Ewps. I also {{AN3|p}} the page for '''1 week''', before having seen your block, mainly because it looks like {{User|Piotrus}} is also involved, plus ] gives overtones of ]. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::No objection to that either, hopefully will give it some time to cool down. I would of course encourage all parties involved to engage in civil discussion, and if that cannot resolve the matter, to seek ] rather than continuing this edit war. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I support protection. Please see this ] thread for some additional facts. Also, while not a 3RR violation, skirting of 3RR by that user may deserve at least a stern warning: , , , , , , , . --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 08:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::The diff cited earlier as evidence of 3RR is clearly a warning to Malik Shabazz about his editing, not an acknowledgment by Radek of his own error. ] (]) 12:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::A link cited as "Diff of 3RR warning" is there to demonstrate that the editor in question knew about the rule. And indeed it shows Radeksz warning User:Malik Shabazz about the rule two days before violating it himself. ] (<small>]</small>) 12:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

::All active editors are aware of the rule -- even the admin who blocked Radek was, himself, blocked at one time for 3RR. The question is whether Radek was aware that his actions were in violation of 3RR -- if you assume good faith, it would suggest that he did not. In any event, it needs to be pointed out that Radek's last edit was at 1;12am, the article was locked at 7:09am, and Radek was blocked at 7:12am. Six hours passed between the final edit and the block. Considering it is now impossible for anyone to engage in edit warring on that article and that Radek was not cited for edit warring elsewhere, the block against Radek can be seen strictly as punishment rather than prevention of a continued edit war on that specific article. Thank you. ] (]) 13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::He was clearly aware of 3RR, he was clearly aware that he was edit warring. ] is not an entitlement to come as close as possible to vioalting it in the course of your edit warring. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Are you writing about Malik? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::No, I'm writing about the editor who violated 3rr in the course of repeatedly restoring material that violated ] and in the course of repeatedly restoring his own personal viewpoints into the article. That would clearly be Radek. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Syphon Filter 2}}
* User: {{userlinks|64.85.234.166}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
-- ] (]) 13:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (<small>]</small>) 13:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|German language}}
* User: {{userlinks|93.133.95.57}}
**also used {{userlinks|93.133.102.100}} in first edits

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* First edit:


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


* Diff of 3RR warning:

User made almost the exact same edits and engaged in an edit war on 26 and 27 of September. Continues to force same edit deemed not relevant by at least 3 different editors without discussing the changes on talk page or providing any kind of edit summary. (] (]) 13:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

:Blocked by Tikiwont. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)



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

* Page: {{article|Sarah_Palin}}
* User: {{userlinks|Threeafterthree}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: There were dozens of deletions. In each case there wasn't any specific "version" that was being restored; just a section of material being deleted.

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

Reverts/deletions:

Deletions of the material in question:



*Removal a POV tag () which I added due to the ongoing deletions. User cites lack of consensus to add POV tag as the reason for removing the tag!

*Deletion of source from the article , followed by addition of {fact} tag since the statement no longer had a source after he deleted it, followed by another deletion of the source after it was added .

*Discussions of previous blocks for edit warring or deletion of talk page comments , , and .

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

This is an issue of edit warring, not specifically 3RR, but from the FAQs it seems this is still the appropriate place to address edit warring. A formal 3RR warning was never issued, as this has been an ongoing and long-term pattern of behavior. I am not sure there were ever actually 3 reverts in 24 hours. However, I repeatedly requested that the user participate in the discussion and efforts towards compromise rather than simply deleting the material over and over again.

The material in question has been the subject of intense debate among editors working on the Palin article, with large numbers of people either feeling that the published analysis and opinions on the subject should be reflected, and others feeling it was not relevant. Over time we reached a modest compromise in which the material was reflected in a few brief and conservative sentences. However, during that whole process, this user's primary contribution was to simply delete the material over and over.

You may notice that nearly every single edit summary is "Rv per talk" or "Please see talk", but his comments in the talk pages are largely limited to "this goes in the Fannon bio", or "Deleted this". The user's argument, which he offers as a rubber stamp to legitimize the repeated deletion rather than actually seeking discussion, is that this issue is completely irrelevant to Palin, even though the numerous sources are discussing it in connection with Palin and based on Palin's notability and political office, not Fannon's. The material changed over time, as editors wrestled with (and argued over) the question of which published opinions would be reflected, and to what extent, if at all. However, ThreeAfterThree's response was always the same – deletion of the whole section. Recently, after being warned to stop deleting the material, he initiated an RFC seeking support for his deletion, and then simply resumed deleting the material after a grand total of TWO comments were posted.

Simply put, in my opinion, this is an ongoing pattern of abusive edit warring, and I believe his ultimate goal is to continue doing this until other users get sick and tired of opposing him and simply let him have his way. My own experience has been that discussion with this user proves fruitless. ] (]) 20:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:"I will continue to revert your vandalism based on about 12 separate wikipedia policies including most of the 5 pillars. Please see again my warning on your talk page and do not delete that warning again. Consider this to be an additional warning that I will seek to have you blocked if you persist in deleting this material which was achieved by arduous consensus among numerous editors" and similar remarks at ] should be ample evidence that FCays is not an innocent in this. ] (]) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Um. Some of those deletions you point to are very old. I can see people reverting, including you. I can see Tom starting an RFC. I can you saying "see the consensus", but I can't see the consensus. Please point it out, rather than shouting ''THIS IS AT LEAST THE FIFTH TIME YOU HAVE IGNORED AN ARDUOUSLY PRODUCED CONSENSUS ON THIS SUBJECT. DO NOT REMOVE IT AGAIN'' which is not very helpful ] (]) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:The discussion in which the two opposing sides compromised on a brief rendition can be found . The actual portion where a compromise was reached can be found under the subsections "Fcreid's proffered language" and "Was there a controversy?" I'd like to point out that the "other side", i.e. the one that preferred not to include it at all, participated extensively in shaping the wording, and the discussion was closed with them being satisfied that it was reflected conservatively, albeit with stated reservations that they did not feel the media coverage reflected the issue fairly (on this, I strongly disagree).

:I recognize that my use of all caps was poor form, but it reflected my intense frustration at having participated in such a long and in-depth discussion, only to have the result wiped out with only a token comment such as 'See talk.. this goes in the Fannon bio' or 'this is a non-issue'. So much work to discuss and compromise, repeatedly nullified by a single user. ] (]) 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:: Many of the edits that you adduce as evidence of misdeed predate the consensus you point to. No vio. This is a content dispute; both sides are reverting and are equally liable to block. Your consensus can be re-opened; sorry if thats frustrating. Further discussion on the article talk, please ] (]) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

:::It's not the possibility of revisiting the discussion that bothers me; it's the fact that a user may make any argument at all, and it need not be actually based in policy to have force.. resulting in Misplaced Pages ultimately relying on a vote among users who care about the article topic but not necessarily about policy. The only thing, apparently, that can prevent this from happening is for a conscientious user to invest vast amounts of time and take extraordinary measures just to ensure that policy is observed. This is quite disturbing and I fear it means that Misplaced Pages is simply a medium for free advertising or free publishing for those who wish to use it as such, while those who wish to preserve editorial integrity essentially serve as free labor for a large, monied foundation that makes scant effort to enforce its own stated rules. Truly a Wild West where honesty is rewarded with scorn and plenty of extra work. Oh well. ] (]) 22:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|President of the United States}}. {{3RRV|BSCOUT13}}: Time reported: 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 253700327 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 253701451 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Electoral College */")</small> This last one wasn't a revert per se, but an edit that went in and undid the previous revert removing this guy's vandalism

—] (]) 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

: 24h. We can't have rubbish scrawled over this article ] (]) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)



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

* Page: {{article|Fibromyalgia}}
* User: {{userlinks|Orangemarlin}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: Complex revert, reverting edits by more than one user.

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

User seems to find it very important to give the reader the impression that fibromyalgia is a controversial, psychosomatic disease. ] (], ]) 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:Whatever. This user has been blocked 5 or 6 times for edit warring. These were legitimate edits for NPOV improvement, they were not the same edit, and this is pure and simply ]. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|nv}} Only three reverts are listed above; it takes four to break 3RR. In fact, Orangemarlin has only three groups of consecutive edits in this period, so he can't have gone over the limit. I looked at Guido's numerous edits but could not tell which ones were reverts. Any admin is welcome to analyze the history further. ] (]) 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::So nothing has changed. User is clearly editwarring, destroying all edits from multiple users, but if he only manages to put his reverts into three edits a day he is allowed to continue this disruptive behaviour. ] (], ]) 10:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Colloidal silver}}
* User: {{userlinks|DHawker}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning: , and again on .

Note there's a 5th revert in there, using an IP, which I'm pretty sure is related: (undoes ). In any case, long-term edit-warring from a single-purpose agenda account on ]. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:There's a 6th revert from a diffent IP, but there are clearly 4 reverts here. (I'm an involved admin, so I may not block.) — ] ] 01:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b|24 hours}} There is a plain-vanilla 3RR violation here, since there are four 'Undos' by DHawker in the space of 24 hours. If another admin believes that there are edit-warring issues here that call for research on other participants, go ahead. Since 3RR can be observed without considering any IP socking issues, I haven't drawn any conclusion there. ] (]) 02:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Editor claims reform, meatpuppets are still being watched) ==

* Page: {{la|ITT Technical Institute}}
* User: {{userlinks|Veecort}}

Since his last block for disruption/edit warring, which is still listed on this page, Veecort has continued to edit war.

Veecort has also been using sockpuppet IP addresses.

*
*
*
* (fails to break 3RR by 31 minutes)
* (fails to break 3RR by 1 hour 53 minutes)
* (breaks 3RR)

There was no 3RR warning diff, but as he's been warned about both edit warring in general once and 3RR in specific twice, I believe it is safe to assume he knows better and simply doesn't care.

] (]) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' This issue is also at , ] and ] just now. By , Veecort appears to be undoing some of his changes that had previously been criticized. Perhaps McJeff can comment if this means Veecort is giving up the edit war. This board would not usually sanction an editor who had promised to stop warring. If he has *not* stopped, this does look like a case for an edit-warring block. Veecort . ] (]) 06:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

::<s>If Veecort is undoing the edits, I don't think he needs to be blocked. Blocks should be preventive, not punative. I probably misspelled punative. ~Anyway, if he continues I can note it here, on ANI or privately, whichever would be best. ] (]) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)</s>

::I'd like to strikethrough my previous comment. Veecort's admitted meatpuppet 70.190 has not agreed to "edit nice", and instead has posted a personal attack and lie about my block log on the article talk page. When a user apologizes for bringing in meatpuppets, is he still held accountable for the actions of his meatpuppets after his apology? Is a meatpuppet considered to be a part of a dispute from the beginning or from the point he joined in? ] (]) 10:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::More admins have joined the since this 3RR was filed. That's also the thread where Veecort seems to promise reform. ] (]) 15:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::'''No action.''' Veecort seems to have reformed, so the remaining problem is that he solicited help with this article on an anti-ITT forum. The article is still semi-protected by ]. Re-open the case if you see continuing problems with the article. ] (]) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Lindsay Tanner}}
* User: {{userlinks|Orderinchaos}}

* Previous version reverted to:

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

This user has been engaged in '''edit warring''', rather than simply violating the three-revert-rule.

I have been editing this article at around the same time, and i have modified all of my edits to take criticism and disputes into account (e.g. refining references to include chapter and page numbers, changing disputed wording to reflect only source material and no original research, etc...).

However, after each and any edit, ] has clicked the "undo" button. ] has made no new contributions and no attempt to compormise on wording with their own edits, instead using the "undo" button (this is the first reason i beleive this fits the "Edit warring" mindset). This has caused ] to revert edits wholesale on two occasions, making it no longer possible to make even uncontroversial additions without them being deleted (see first and second reverts linked above). In addition, ] has been using the comment field of the "Edit article" page to make personal attacks/threats, which can be still be seen in the History tab. (This is the second reason why I suspect this fits the definition of an "edit warring" mindset.)

In addition, i have been informed by another user that ] has made references to collecting "offline information" about me. I have no further information as to what ] means by "offline information", but this may begin to push it into the realm of RL harrassment/stalking, and constitutes a third reason to suspect this user to be engaging in Misplaced Pages with an "edit warring" mindset. (''Updated to add: I have been informed that Friojolez8282 has submitted a formal complaint on this matter to Misplaced Pages Oversight.'')

* Diff of 3RR warning:

I am not sure what penalties are due for this sort of behavior, but I believe that the innappropriate comments this user has been making in his "comments" field should be removed entirely (is that possible?). I also wished to draw this to the administrators attention, as this kind of behaviour discourages users from returning to engage with Misplaced Pages edits at all. The reference this user has reportedly made to having an "offline" interest in me is particularly troubling. ] (]) 07:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:: I believe I have been perfectly reasonable in dealing with a person who, with a friend, is determinedly attempting to drive a far-left agenda on an article about a Minister of the Australian government and force violations of ]/] and ] into the article. I became involved as I saw the edit war the two users in question had gotten into with one of the ]'s regular contributors, and ended up concluding the latter was entirely right in their judgement that the content in question should not be in the article. The off-Wiki information, all available online through what I would consider to be both common-sense and non-intrusive means, merely demonstrated that the two users were closely linked and are student activists in the real world. I think it is important that Dissembly and his friend learn that process-warring (including bizarre allegations , wanton misinterpretation of policy, and meatpuppetry ( ) is not an acceptable means of obtaining a content outcome. The person has not shown any wish to negotiate honestly on the topic on the talk page, has rebuffed any attempt to intellectually engage, leaving questions about the edits unanswered on the talk page or using them as a springboard for more personal attacks. No page numbers, by the way, were ever provided.
:: The user's claims are frivolous (I challenge anyone to find anything inappropriate in the edit summaries linked, or oversightable, for that matter) and should be dismissed as those of a person who failed to push their point of view on a high visibility article because an admin with some background knowledge in the field (Australian politics) got involved. As a user with almost 40,000 edits to my name, nearly all of them development of new content or expansion of Misplaced Pages's coverage, and with endorsements such as , together with the user's own spotty history, I think there's some ] issues apparent. ] 07:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:::: This is nothing but a series of unfounded allegations and bizarre attempts to slander my name. Is there an administrator here? ] (]) 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:::I second Orderinchaos' comments. ] (]) 08:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no inappropriate edit summaries, rather I see removal of largely inappropriate edits. I would strongly caution Dissembly that making frivolous reports just makes his or her behavior more disruptive, and I would advise that (s)he take a close look at the situation before editing again. As to Orderinchaos, good job keeping cool in a difficult situation. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:], i have made no innappropriate edits in my history with Misplaced Pages. In any case, it is not my behaviour that is being questioned here. I have never made a "frivolous report", and i find this assertion to be inappropriate and a violation of the "Assume Good Faith" policy of Misplaced Pages. Are you an administrator? ] (]) 11:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:: Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages does tend to work by the "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" maxim. ] 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer Dissembly's question - both Orderinchaos and Seraphimblade are administrators. ] (]) 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|User talk:Tony1}}
* User: {{userlinks|Ohconfucius}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

Editor is repeatedly removing my comments from another editors talk page and refuses to stop. —] • ] • ] 08:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:24 hours, and some advice for both of you to leave one another alone as every interaction seems to end rather badly. In this case, however, Ohconfucius' behavior is far outside the bounds of what is acceptable, and has been repeated despite warnings. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::FWIW I generally do try to steer clear of his edits, but unfortunately he appears to pick fights with me over seemingly trivial things (like these talk page comments). I will continue to try and avoid this editor if possible. —] • ] • ] 09:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:Additional note: this editor seems be evading his block using his sockpuppet. See {{user|Date delinker}} (note the user page makes clear it is owned by Ohconfucius). —] • ] • ] 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::{{admin-note}} Ohconfucius was blocked at 06:10, 25 November 2008; his edits at Date Delinker post Ohconfucius-block have been dealing with overlinking, such as -- not date de-linking. <small>] &#x007C; ] &#x007C; ]</small> 00:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Ohconfucius was blocked for a violation of ] (specifically 3RR), not for his date unlinking activities. This is a case of block evasion (see ]). —] • ] • ] 03:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


:::*I was not going go comment using this account, but seeing as this is no longer an incidental matter, I thank ] for the opportunity to respond to one in many of the ongoing series of ] against not only me (and some other users) personally, but ] us from carrying out what is otherwise considered by the vast majority of users as ] by running to ]. The separation of functions between the two accounts is crystal clear, it always has been, and always will be. Date delinker was blocked for delinking dates, albeit as a secondary result of reducing the extent of overlinking. DD has never done anything which is not specified explicitly in the mission statement; the account has only been working on date-delinked articles since blocking was lifted. It will be clear from a review of Coles contributions that he has been working on all cylinders in an attempt to challenge, using all means at his disposal, the current ] on deprecation of date-autoformatting. I will once again ] mention that Cole has been persistently stalking, ] certain users' talk pages including ] and myself, but WT:MOSNUM and reporting us to ] to the extent that several of us have asked him to desist in his ]. Acting together with ], they have filed cases against fure user who have been delinking dates or generally been opposing what they are doing, while none have descended to theur level by filing any counter-reports here. The block on ] has not been lifted, which is a great travesty because my protagonist just got off with a wrist slap whereas I got slapped in the face. Even yesterday, before Cole started putting unwanted messages on Tony's talk page, he already asked Cole to stop his harrassment. I answered his call because I knew he was being tied up with clients, and Tony later specifically gave me dispensation to remove the ] posted to his talk page. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 03:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

::::*See ] (specifically as ] is a policy and you're using a sockpuppet to circumvent it). —] • ] • ] 04:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] ==

* Page: {{article|Roronoa_Zoro}}
* Page: {{article|Sanji}}
* Page: {{article|Tony Tony Chopper}}
* User: {{userlinks|Gune}}

Gune has been repeatedly reverting sub-pages of ] that have been merged and redirected through month and a half long merge discussion. He has exceed three reverts of these pages and has received warnings for his actions, however the behavior continues.
I'd like to see some sort of administrator intervention. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 10:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:Specifically here, there have ] been 3 reverts, however he's reverting other pages as well. He was blocked in October for doing the exact same thing. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 10:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

Roronoa Zoro
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

Sanji
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:

Tony Tony Chopper
* 1st revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: Warned by 2 editors.

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

Edit: Fixed the format. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You both merged the pages with the only concensus being you two when multiple editors have disagreed. Besides this isn't breaking the three revert rule unless I did it once more time. ] (]) 10:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:I'll let the admin decide. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 10:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::I'd like to add that this has nothing to do with the merge discussion. We held it from mid October until now and he decided that it wasn't important enough to voice his opinion (though he were actively editing other articles the whole time). This is just a case of ]. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 18:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Only the ships were agreed to be merged along with Franky and Brook. No other pages were agreed on. Only you and Goodraise supported all character merges. Multiple editors disagreed. This is a case of ] and just because you both think you own Misplaced Pages. In fact when Goodraise put the Sanji page up for deletion it was a '''reopen merge discussion''' consensus not '''merge anyway just because I like to think I own Misplaced Pages.''' ] (]) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:Again, we're not talking about the merge discussion. You had over a month to present arguments against these merges and you didn't take that opportunity. Edit warring is not an acceptable alternative. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 07:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome}}
* Page: {{article|Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome}}
* Page: {{article|Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome}}
* Page: {{article|Notable people with chronic fatigue syndrome}}
* Page: {{article|Fibromyalgia}}
* User: {{userlinks|RetroS1mone}}

* 1st revert: , contains reverts of (parts of) the following edits:
* 2nd revert: , contains reverts of (parts of) the following edits:
* 3rd revert: , reverting the following edit:
* 4th revert: , reverting the following edit:
* 5th revert:

* Diff of warning:

User is editwarring on multiple articles, basically destroying almost all my contributions without discussion. User seems to be stalking me, showing up at an article that he normally doesn't edit only to delete my one remaining edit. Between him and Orangemarlin on ], they have deleted most of a full day's work. ] (], ]) 10:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

:Guido has listed five reverts to ''five different pages'' in this posting and should probably be sanctioned for abusing this noticeboard. --] (]) 17:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:: I mentioned this at ] and Guido has refused to modify or remove this frivolous report. ] <small>]</small> 17:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::: Do none of you ever read any policies?
:::''For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, '''or one per page across many pages'''...'' (]) ] (], ]) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::: You haven't shown edit warring occurring on any of those pages, let alone multiple pages. ] <small>]</small> 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::::: The diffs are right there, thanks. ] (], ]) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::: So is your contention that anyone that reverts the same editor anywhere on the project, more than four times, within a "protracted" period of time, is edit warring? Because if it is I think your reasoning is highly faulty. There has to be some edit warring first. ] <small>]</small> 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::: Editwarring is an attitude; the number of reverts is by itself not decisive. The key element here is that user reverts my every edit on sight. What I content is that if you recognize the common denominator in all these reverts, you may better understand what is going on. That, however, requires some knowledge of the topic, which you may not possess. Misplaced Pages is weak that way. ] (], ]) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at ] and ] in both cases R only reverted one of G's edits, so clearly isn't blind-reverting. In both cases an edit comment offered a plausible explanation for the revert, so I don't think ''basically destroying almost all my contributions without discussion.'' is a reasonable description of the situation. This is your second rejected report in as many days; don't make a third ] (]) 19:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
:I have no way of knowing beforehand whether a report is going to be rejected, so basically you're saying that I should never again make a report but instead simply allow my every edit to be reverted without protest. ] (], ]) 21:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to every one that defended me today, this is intolerable behavior for editor just off month block. Guido, you can know beforehand a report is going to be rejected when what you are reporting is not edit warring. Here is quote from WP 3RR, "A group of consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." so is obvious, Orangemarlin reverted most twice, I reverted most once. Pls do not waste peoples time like this again. ] ] 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

* 6th revert: ] (], ]) 01:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
::This is a separate edit on a 6th article!! I explained my edits, I was changing POV and original research by Guido and a IP. ] ] 07:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

== Georgia (Result: No action) ==

Irakli

Georgia


Dear administrators,

I have a question to you:

Does russian Wiki have the right to amputate two Georgian regions and subtract their area from the whole area of the country? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:'''No action.''' We have no jurisdiction over the Russian Misplaced Pages. Please ask administrators there what to do. Here is what appears to be . ] (]) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 month for vandalism) ==

* Page: {{article|John Beck (American football)}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jamo9503}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

:{{AN3|b|1 month}} Long-term vandalism. Two previous blocks. ] (]) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h all round) ==

* Page: {{article| North Irish Horse }}
* User: {{userlinks| The Thunderer }}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


*1st revert:

* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
*6th revert:

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->

Thunderer has been told of the ] and has insisted of reverting against consensus. They recently had 7 3RR reports on this very subject . They were blocked and apologised, and the next day started again and now the report above. They have been asked not to keep reverting and to come back to the mediation we are involved in by the mediator but with no luck. Reporting here is now the only option left open. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

: T is edit warring, but not against consensus. I'm very surprised you put in such a one-sided report. But nonetheless, 24h all round ] (]) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ] I hope it helps. I had written up the 3RR for the other editor when I coped I had not given them a 3RR warning, so I could not file the report. It appears however, it was not nessary since you blocked them? As to consensus, it forms no part of this report. Thanks again, --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
: ''As to consensus, it forms no part of this report'' - a bizarre statement, since you plainly did make it part of the report ] (]) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You said yourself T was edit warring, end of story. Your opinion on the issue of consensus forms no part of this report. And yes it was against consensus, but this is not the place to discuss it. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: No Blocks issued) ==

* Page: {{article|The Real World}}
* User: {{userlinks|65.31.103.28}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, but the user is unwilling to talk about it first before making edits.
Instead, the user has threatened to "block me" if I touch the page again. See ]. I believe some discussion should take place before edits to this section continue. ] (]) 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! I never violated the three revert rule. The first one wasn't a reversion! Plastikspork is confusing the first time I added the info to the article with a reversion. Also, the first time Plastiskspork made the reversion, he didn't explain why. It was a constructive edit so I didn't see why he reverted it without at least giving me an explanation so then I wrote 'unexplained reversion' when I reverted it back. He merely replied in edit summary to "go to the talk page if you want to make this edit" without attempting to do so himself. I explained that every editor doesn't have to go to the talk page before they make an edit on Misplaced Pages. I then warned him that he would be violating the three revert rule at his 3rd revert this is how he has responded. Only at the last minute did he actually start up a discussion and explain to me what he had a problem with on the talk page, making no attempt to do so in his edit summaries. ] (]) 23:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

: But the other three edits of course still leads to the edit war. ] (]) 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that they are working it out now. I see no need to block.

Actually, I'm 99 percent sure Plastikspork has resorted to sockpuppetry in order to get his way and make his forth reversion as this IP user here . here he agrees with Plastikspork on the talk page . IP user decided to make his first edits as a reversions and in our debate on the article agreeing with Plastikspork, if you'll notice his edit history: ] (]) 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== Slow edit warring at ] (result: block; semi) ==

This has been going on for ages, and there is little sign of any attempts to discuss. Can someone protect the page or something?--] (]) 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

: Blocked ] 48h for edit warring etc. Also ''SoWhy (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Tatars: IP edit-warring ( (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)) (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)))) (undo)'' which should help ] (]) 13:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

==Block evasion by ]==
{{user|Ohconfucius}} was ] but proceeded to ] that block using a sockpuppet {{user|Date delinker}}. I'm raising the issue here as my comment in the report above seems to have been missed. —] • ] • ] 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

: Its not a sock, its an alternate account. Blocked 24h anyway ] (]) 13:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

:: Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with date delinking: he violated 3RR on his primary account (Ohconfucius) and was blocked and subsequently used his alternate/sock account (Date delinker) to evade that block and continue editing. BTW: Is the autoblocker broken, I'd have thought he shouldn't be able to do that while blocked? —] • ] • ] 13:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Lesbian}}
* User: {{userlinks|Lihaas}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lesbian&oldid=245096852

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lesbian&diff=247945475&oldid=247879744
* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lesbian&diff=253538710&oldid=252916691
* 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lesbian&diff=253540276&oldid=253539917
* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lesbian&diff=253819191&oldid=253709514
* 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lesbian&diff=254113168&oldid=253923056
* 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lesbian&diff=254221005&oldid=254114482

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

::The tag team reverting of ], ] and ] have consistently refused to adhere to talk page discussion after they came to conclusion on October 25 in order to establish their own view. I have, on multiple, occasions informed them to ''use the talk facility'' get an agreement and '''then''' move to change it. Yet they insist on establishing their view. Even as a tag-team they could establish a consensus but still insist on their view.
::See this ] for the consistent '''refusal''' to adhere to the discussion. On this basis it constitues vandalism as it is "Reverting the addition of biased..." content. It's not as it I have gone about and deliberately my or my posse's opinion. I have used the talk facility that she (?) now decides it not worth using.
::Furthermore, she has distorted the picture above in producing versions that mix a pre and post discussion consensus. The edits above were a result of the discussion on the page. ] (]) 13:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:24, 27 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    4. (second IP)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

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

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

    User:Folawiki reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Grail Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision 1265465515 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
    2. 02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265464633 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
    3. 02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265460975 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
    4. 01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240888069 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Grail Movement."
    2. 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */ WP:FTN notice"
    3. 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Grail Movement."
    4. 02:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Grail Movement."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "@Folawiki: The whitewashing has to stop. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"

    Comments:

    Cult whitewashing. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:TheHappiestEditor reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

    Page: Trisha Krishnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265170057 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
    2. 13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."
    • Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
    1. - putting fake sources/infomation
    2. - putting fake sources/infomation
    3. - putting fake sources/infomation

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    POV pushing/cherry-picking "Malayalam" and edit warring in a lot of articles. Apart from the above listed, the user has been pushing "Malayalam" as one of the languages in which "actor XYZ" has acted 'predominantly' in but in actuality the entries are only a few . The editor has received multiple warnings for being disruptiove and a recent one for edit-warring from Krimuk2.0. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    TheHappiestEditor, please respond to these allegations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:103.84.130.238 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Hariprasad Chaurasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 103.84.130.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
      1. 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262480024 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
      2. 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC) ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia "

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about WP:NCIN and MOS:HON in edit summaries and warnings Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a level 4 warning, but was asked to report it here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Johnny test person reported by User:ToBeFree (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Angelo Rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Johnny test person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265440086 by ToBeFree (talk)"
    2. 19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265401281 by Codename AD (talk)"
    3. 19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395978 by Codename AD (talk)"
    4. 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395008 by Aoidh (talk)"
    5. 18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265382744 by Aoidh (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (Special:Diff/1265613452) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Categories: