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 23:48, 13 February 2006 editSagafg65675673 (talk | contribs)1,318 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:31, 27 December 2024 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,152 edits →User:Folawiki reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: ): indeffed 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 490
|algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
==Violations==
<!-- Please add new listings at the ***BOTTOM*** of this page, just before the "Report new violation" header". -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===]===
#
] violation on {{Article|Mark Levin}}. :
#
#
#


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


Reported by ] 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Anonymous user has also been reported for vandalism. Article in question is a political radio show host, and the ensuing edit war is not uncommon in Misplaced Pages. However, a glance at some comments about the anonymous user's activities on the Article and Talk Pages should help illuminate things. ] 21:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
===]===
] violation on {{Article|Typhoid Mary (comics)}}. {{3RRV|DrBat}}:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Reported by: ] 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
*Unless you have proof that the anonymous user and DrBat are the same person, I'm afraid this doesn't count as a 3RR violation. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
***See ]. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
****It's not an anonymous user anymore. He just reverted it again under his own name, but I did the check anyway, thanks. ] ] 20:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I asked him to give up his image. If he persists, then I'll impose a block on him. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 22:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
AriGold; '''1)'''I'll expect an apology from you when its confirmed the anon-IP isn't me.<br>
*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
'''2)'''The fourth reversion happened a day later than the first three reversions (Feb. 8, while the first three were on the seventh). If I'm not mistaken, I thought the limit was 3 reversions per a day? If not, you broke the 3RR limit as well. --] 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
:It's a limit of 3 reversions within a 24 hour period, not per calendar day. AriGold did indeed break it, but I'm hoping that instead of just doling out punishments the issue is resolved and we'll leave it at that. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
*:1.
::Howcheng, reverting vandalism more than 3 times is a violation? All I was doing was reverting the picture back to its original form while DrBat kept reuploading and inserting versions of his picture that has just been deleted. ] 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
*:2.
::DrBat, if you are not 201.17.89.78, I do apologize. And you reverted it more than 3 times in 24 hours, which is a no no. ] 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
*:3.
:::This isn't vandalism -- it's a content dispute over which image should be used. I'm ] that when DrBat says the new image is different from the deleted image, it's different. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
*:4.
::::This all started with two images. His image of artwork was deleted in favor of mine that was the comic cover. Then, he proceeded to reupload the artwork images and keep inserting it, and I kept changing it back to the comic cover. That is reverting vandalism, as far as I can tell. ] 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
*:5.
:::::It was deleted because you said that the image was modifed, which wasn't true at all (and despite all my proof, you refused to believe it until after the image was deleted). It was deleted on false pretenses. And the second image I uploaded was a different version (if you notice, it lacked the exposed nipple of the original version. I also posted both images on the WikiComics project post, if you want to compare.)
*:6.
:::::And regardless, it wasn't vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia". If anything, your edits are vandalism for repacing high-quality images with poor, low-quality images. Why you insist on replacing decent images with ugly images that only hurt the article is beyond me.--] 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
::::::It was deleted because I said that the image was used on a comic cover and the consensus was that the cover itself was better use. I see you've been following what everyone has told you and gone and changed the pics to the actual covers, do you not understand that that was my point? I seriously wish you would understand that and we could move on. You are a great contributor and I think you took my challenge of your contribution too personally. ] 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
*: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)
::::::It wasn't personal, I just thought that your image was of a poor quality, and it detracted from the article. --] 02:50, 11 February 2006 (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)
:This user has AGAIN reuploaded the image that was deleted and reinserted it into the Typhoid Mary article despite the opinions of 3 mods! ] 15:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
*:::If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's ]. ] | ] 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <br />
] violation on {{Article|Maharishi Mahesh Yogi}}. {{3RRV|Lumiere}}:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Reported by: ] 15:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
#
*Given , it seems to me that Lumière is open to compromise, so I'll let him off with a warning. Next time, please use ]s when reporting 3RR violations. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
#
#
#


===]===


] violation on {{Article|Mariah Carey}}. {{3RRV|204.110.99.42}}:


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Reported by: ] 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
'''Comments:'''
*User fails to cite sources for his/her edits or discuss them, even after being requested to do so. ] 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
*Blocked both 204.119.99.41 and .42 for 24 hours. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
] violation on {{Article|Islam}}. {{3RRV|80.202.111.88}}:


Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


:The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? ] (]) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reported by: ] 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
::@]
::"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) ==
''2006-02-09 02:44:55 Anonymous editor blocked "80.202.111.88 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (3rr twice, was warned)'' ] 18:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
===]===
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
User:Colle has violated the 3rvt rule on the talk page of ] by reverting my comment 4 times (the last in part). I don't really want him blocked because overall he may be a good editor, but I believe I have a right to reply to a comment, and the repeated removal is infuriating. So if he does agree to revert himself I have no problem letting it go as I said on his talk. ] 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:You can see the full history . I, while not violating the 3rvt rule, probably should have let it go sooner, but this is my opinion and a reply to a statement on the same talk page. I believe this amounts to little more than censorship. ] 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#
#
#
# (second IP)


His fifth revert can be found if anyone is interested. ] 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


:Oh and number if anyone is intent on serving justice. He is unlikely to revert himself and continues on reverting the page to his version. ] 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


*I tried discussing this with ] to no avail. User persisted and has been blocked for 24 hours. --]] 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


'''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
] violation on {{Article|Children of Bodom}}. {{3RRV|Leyasu}}:


* Previous version reverted to: '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Reported by: ] 14:25, 9 February 2006 (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) ==
'''Comments:'''
*User has attempted to get away with reverts by making slight changes. It's essentially the same article.
*User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users.
*User deems newer good-faith edits by others to be "POV" and "vandalism" and uses these as justifications for reverts.
*A number of users are trying to make positive changes to this article but the constant reverting is stifling the process. Some have tried to reason with this user without success.
*The revert in question is to a version with factual inaccuracies and spelling and grammar mistakes.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Marc Benioff}}
:Blocked for 48 hours this time considering he resumed his edit warring almost immediately after his last block expired. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|99.98.190.59}}
===]===


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] violation on {{Article|Freemasonry}}. {{3RRV|Basil_Rathbone}}:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1265027253|18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1265009969|16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 3rd revert:
# {{diff2|1264902002|03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 4th revert:
# {{diff2|1264865734|23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Reported by: ] 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265024674|18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
# {{diff2|1265033023|18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Comments:'''
# {{diff2|1265024924|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"
*Continues to vandalize. Won't discuss edits. ] 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
*Not reverts? Certainly, adding a link to Secret Society is innocuous. Perhaps attempting to engage him would work better than constantly edit warring with him? ] - ] 16:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
**He's been asking to discuss his edits and fails to do so. ] 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
***There was only one person asking, and that was me. Revert warring someone into a violation of 3rr is incredibly bad faith. This user deserves to be talked with, not revert warred apon. Some of his changes could be valuable. I assume he has been sockchecked with the arbcom sanctioned user. ] - ] 16:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
**Unfortunately, the situation with Basil is strikingly similar to what happened in ]. Almost to the point of being the same information.--] 16:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
User indef blocked as sock of arbcom blocked user. ] - ] 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dune: Part Two}}
===]===


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
] violation on {{Article|Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi}}. {{3RRV|Zarbon}}:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Reported by: ] 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265161751|12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{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:'''
'''Comments:'''
# {{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:'''
*User has a history of edit warring and conflict with other users.
# {{diff2|1265080353|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"
*User has an admitted sock puppet ] and two suspect IPs ] and ] make the same reverts and edits throughout this week, once on one topic of conversation in the synopsis of article, now in another. ] is the primary IP on this article causing the most strain.
*Has said he has "no problem constantly resetting it. i can do it too, see who gets tired first".
*Will not discuss reverts, insisting it be done a certain way. Says other users will have to "deal with it".
*Has been caught using sock puppet to second his edits on the history page.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Blocked ]. Note that although ] claims to be Zarbon, I don't see Z claiming to be ]. So I warned Z, just in case. ] 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC).


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)
===]===
:{{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) ==
] violation on {{Article|Kelly Clarkson}}. {{3RRV|HeyNow10029}}:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
* Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Callmehelper}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Reported by: ] 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


'''Comments:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
*User appears to be engaged in an edit war/dispute with {{user|Wwfanz}} as seen on ] regarding the use of one infobox over another, though it should be noted that Wwfanz replaced ] with ] on several articles without any prior discussion. ] 19:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#
**Is the user aware of ]? I didn't see any warnings at ]. ] 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#
***I placed the <nowiki>{{3RR}}</nowiki> warning on the user's talk page. {{user|HeyNow10029}} has also been edit warring on ]. Based on comments in edit summaries and on the user's talk page, I think there may be a serious misunderstanding of the fair use and ] policies. -- {{user|Malber}} 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
#
****Agreed. &mdash;] | ] 02:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


===]===


] violation on {{Article|Template talk:WikiProject Computer science}}. {{3RRV|Dzonatas}}:


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
] violation on {{Article|Template:WikiProject Computer science}}. {{3RRV|Dzonatas}}:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Reported by: —'']'' 21:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


<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)
'''Comments:'''
* On the talk page Dzonatas kept removing a comment, claiming it was a personal attack, which it clearly is not. He keeps changing the template itself from the one agreed upon on the talk page. Seems to be doing this just to be distruptive as he is not a member of the project. {{unsigned|R.Koot}}


:It's me @].
* ] did not warn me of this before my last edit. &mdash; ]
:'''Clarification by my side ; '''
* ] has not justified his reason he thought these are reverts as asked on the talk page. &mdash; ]
:Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.
* ] has not answered the questions presented to him. &mdash; ]
:* ''Disputes details'' ;
* ] tries the illustrate a point (to get this block) instead of answer the questions and simply state the point. &mdash; ]
:# Firstly , I edit ] check history of that page from to
* These are not identical reverts above in whole or in part. &mdash; ]
:#''' process of reverting by others and my responses'''
* ] has stated his reverts were over grammar, which is taken as a personal attack because has not simply stated where I am wrong about the grammar if I really am wrong about the grammar. &mdash; ] 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:** then and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes ] then i thought matter would be solved.
* I followed ], but ] insists on a version that judges me. &mdash; ] 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:*But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement and my response of revert and discussion on his talk page ]
:Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there
:Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk ] but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on ]
:So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.
:the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under ] or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.
:so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .
:'''Conclusion'''
:So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.
:Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.
:i left a discussion on ] page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources ].
:I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.
:
:I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.
:Much Regards. ] (]) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{AN3|d}} Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. ] (]) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
Blocked for 24h for 3RR on the Template. Not technically 3RR on the Talk because the first edit wasn't a revert, just a total waste of everyones time. Dzontas: please learn to get along with people. D's complaints about personal attack I judge totally unfounded. ] 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC).


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Angelo Rules}} <br />
======
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnny test person}}
] violation on {{Article|Template talk:WikiProject Bulgarians}}.


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Reported by: ] 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


'''Comments:'''
Has continually been puting in false information, claiming the non existence of a another ethnic group, which I have felt was a sense of racism/propaganda/hatred.
My self (removed by ] 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)) have continued to remove this certain edit which may have caused some confusion or anger among readers.


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
:{{user|85.187.163.40}} has . ] 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
] violation on {{Article|Plasma cosmology}}. {{3RRV|Elerner}}:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* Previous version reverted to:
Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
* 1st revert:
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
Reported by: ] 03:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Grail Movement}}
'''Comments:'''
* Four reverts as <span class="plainlinks">] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;)</span> and three as <span class="plainlinks">] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;)</span>. See this diff with edit summary ''I'm not nnon, I'm Lerner, who wrote most of this, operating remotely'' indicating the IP address is Lerner.
* Please see also the relevant old ], including a past violation. Lerner seems unwilling to discuss changes on talk and threatens to "get ] banned." &ndash;] 03:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked for 24 hours. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Folawiki}}
===]===


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] violation on {{Article|East Sea (disambiguation)}}. {{3RRV|Appleby}}:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{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 ] (])"
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1265465049|02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1265464033|02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 3rd revert:
# {{diff2|1265459461|01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 4th revert:


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Reported by: ] 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265461000|01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
# {{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:'''
'''Comments:'''
# {{diff2|1265464764|02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "{{re|Folawiki}} The whitewashing has to stop. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"
* User:Appleby is a repeat offender of 3RR. After returning from a recent 72-hour block, he proceeded today to another edit war in the exact same ] page where he broke 3RR twice before. He may have carefully evaded 3RR this time, but some of us had received warnings last time from admin ], not to edit war. And so I refrained this time, but obviously Appleby hasn't.
* I don't think Appleby is willing to communicate with us (or even listen to us) to reach any concensus. And some communication we already had in ] shows that we are very far apart. Please discuss with admin ] what to do. I left a note with Katefan0 already. If you suggest mediation or arbitration, please lock this page (preferably at a concensus version) and we shall go into arbitration (or mediation) right away. Thank you.--] 10:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Blocked (again) for however long he was blocked last time ] 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC).


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

*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
===]===
{{3RRV|Robsteadman}}. Repeated identical reverts to ] Blocked once for 3RR on this same page. not learning his lesson. Please block for longer period this time.
*1st insert:
*1st revert:
*2d revert:
*3d revert:
*4th revert:
While last revert changed one word, it is, for all intents and purposes, a revert and he is clearly gaming the system and causing more toruble on the same page (just like before) Please block.] ] 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Now he's up to at least 3 reverts with "religous scholars" instead of "Christian scholars." That's at least 6 or 7 reverts of the same thing in my opinion. Please block and help bring peace to the article!] ] 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24h. Jesus, Prince of Peace :-) ] 16:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

nb: there was some slight strangeness with a space before the username... hope that is fixed now. ] 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him 48 hours instead since this was his second violation and he seems awfully aggressive in his comments. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===
Repeated additions of image of Devil to ].
*1st insert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38936878&oldid=38927511
*deleted with comment ''rv nefarious edit''
*1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38947251&oldid=38943844
*deleted with sarcastic comment about exorcism
*2d revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38950500&oldid=38949972
*deleted with summary ''rv trolling''
*3d revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38951802&oldid=38950728
*deleted with summary ''remove trolling again''
*4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=38957321&oldid=38955289
] 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked for 24 hours. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Jehovah's Witnesses}}. {{3RRV|User:69.129.82.150}}:

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

Reported by: ] 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* User removes resource without explanation. ] 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

More edits:

* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:

please help. ] 21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
Link was removed as completely "off-topic" for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses. Its own description shows that it has nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower, but is merely a personal site set up to attack a former associate of theirs. It's my understanding that that makes the link off-topic and irrelevant as a Resource link placed under Positive or Neutral Resources for the article. Unless wikipedia now allows for these sorts of links, I feel that the removal of the link was appropriate under Misplaced Pages guidelines, but will defer to the admins. You may also note that a separate link provided by the submitter concerning the Watchtower's teaching on 607 was never touched, as it IS on-topic and relevant to the article. ] 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

:Link was removed 8 times without a single reason given. Tim, that is not appropriate ] (are you user:69.129.82.150?), and is a clear, and persistent (anon user was (and )) violation of ]. You may disagree with the links inclusion but you must talk these things out on the appropriate talk page when it is clear that others take exception to its removal. ] 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

::I was unaware of how to insert a reason during the removal process, and apologize for not providing a reason at the time. I believe I have since properly noted my confusion at the inclusion of the link, at the talk page for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses, and now await any responses there. Even so, it does not appear that the link at issue serves as a resource pertaining to the article itself, so much as it unabashedly admits to being a site devoted to criticizing another website and little else--thus constituting itself less a proper resource for the article on Jehovah's Witnesses and MORE as a proper resource of criticism against the e-watchman site. However, this discussion would probably be better served at the talk page. I simply wanted to respond to the complaint against my actions (I didn't know about the 3-max edits at the time, but now do and will not violate it further) and apologize accordingly. ] 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm fine with that. ] 05:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Freemasonry}}. {{3RRV|Sunday_Service}}:

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

Reported by: ] 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*Sockpuppet of {{User|Lightbringer}} and {{user|Basil_Rathbone}}

**I would say ''possible'' sock, based on speed of edits, and that it was reversions back to blocked ]'s edits. Additionally, subject has now made a false accusation on the vandalism page against me.--] 21:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no 3rr, the only reverts are the 2nd and 3rd. In the first he is changing the information in a section. In the 2nd and 3rd he reverts back to that change. In the 4th he changes a completly seperate section, and in the 5th he changes a ton. The amount of invalid 3RR reports that have been coming off of the Freemasonry and Freemasonry talk pages recently is alittle disturbing. <font color="FF3399">]</font> 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not terribly familiar with Lightbringer's MO, but on a cursory glance it appears similar enough to me that I blocked 24 hours, pending David Gerard having a minute to look himself. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===] and ]===

] violation on {{Article|Abortion}}. {{3RRV|Informativemiss}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

Reported by: ] 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* It is believed that the user first reverted using an anon IP, then performed the 2nd to 6th reverts under ]. There is no consensus for the changes on the talk page or anywhere else. She has now demonstrated that she is indeed ] with this edit: . ] 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

*I am sorry that you think I am ] because I have no idea about any of his/her previous edits. This is humorous, since that is not my IP address. -] 22:01, February 10, 2006

* Earlier reverts of the same content made by ] and .-] 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

*So now I am three people? I am very confused. I reverted the links that I saw were deleted by someone "reverting." This seems like a personal attack.-] 22:07, February 10, 2006

**Disagreeing with your insistence on ignoring consensus is not a personal attack, and the consensus is that links to shock sites are not to be included in the article. You still reverted the addition of the links five times. ] 23:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
:::In fact, your first edit was to revert that link. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
::::I know, I wrote 'additions' in the comment above when I meant 'removals'. I'm a twit - sorry it wasn't clear. ] 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Biblical inerrancy}}. {{3RRV|User:199.29.6.2}}:

*: ] adds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
*: ] removes said links
*: ] removes 3 links: "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki"
*: ] readds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
*: ] removes "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links and readds "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
*: ] removes "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
*: ] readds "Inerrancy.org" and "Christian Thinktank" links
*: ] removes "Christian Thinktank" link
*: ] readds &quot;Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
*: ] readds "Christian Thinktank" link
*: ] removes "Skeptics Annotated Bible", "A Few Bible Contradictions", and "ErrancyWiki" links
*: ] removes "CreationWiki on Biblical inerrancy", "Inerrancy.org", and "Christian Thinktank" links
*: ] readds "CreationWiki on Biblical inerrancy", "Inerrancy.org", and "Christian Thinktank" links (3 revs)

Reported by: ] 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*I believe that ], ] and ] are the same user, utilizing different addresses to circumvent the system. This article has been the site of problems in the past, and I (and others) have tried to keep a balanced approach, esp. in the external links. I encouraged this user to help with that goal, to little avail. ] 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Hyper-Calvinism}}. {{3RRV|Williamo1}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

Reported by: ] 01:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*Constant reversion despite pleas on the article's and user's talk page. ] 01:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
**Blocked both ] and ] for 24 hours. -- ] | ] 09:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Anselm_of_Canterbury}}. {{3RRV|KarlBunker}}:

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

Reported by: ] 02:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:Karl Bunker is claiming 3op rule, falsely to justify his vandalism. I have already warned him 2 times, and will warn him again, right after posting this.'''
*Blocked for 24 hours -- ] | ] 09:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
**Also blocked ] for a 3RR on the same article ( -- ] | ] 09:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|PlayStation Portable}}. {{3RRV|69.203.142.41}}:

* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

Reported by : <font color="FF3399">]</font> 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' He removed information from the article that was created via a discussion on the talk page, information that we feel to be NPOV and necessary to include because it is standard in all Game Console articles to have a blurb about marketshare. He's also removing the disclaimer that notes that sony only reports console's they have shipped not sales figures. Both are very POV changes. I placed the 3rr warning on his talk page, and he did it again without ever responding. Also the only edits the user has ever made are vandalizing Sony Playstation Series articles. <font color="FF3399">]</font> 07:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked for 24 hours -- ] | ] 08:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Erika_Steinbach}}. {{3RRV|Maria_Stella}}:

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

Reported by: ] | ] 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* Also see ''] (3)'' below -- ] | ] 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First offence, but you warned her. 12h. ] 11:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

===] (3)===

] violation on {{Article|Erika Steinbach}}. {{3RRV|Space_Cadet}}:

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

Reported by: ] | ] 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* This is the third 3RR of ] currently on ], This edit war is like the other edit wars of ] also about the question how German/Polish something (here the birthplace of Erika Steinbach) is or was. I had previous conflicts with this user, so I did not block him, but I would propose a longer block for repeated edit warring on multiple articles (the other 3RRs being ] and ] above). Also see '']'' above -- ] | ] 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

: Blocked 48h. Now to proceed upwards... ] 11:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===
] violation on {{Article|Ariel Sharon}}. {{3RRV|Tasc}}:

5 reverts within a few minutes, also the reverts may be considered simple vandalism as he is removing valid content.
: this "valid content" is mentioned in the article. aparently you have been reading it. --] 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

::All the other things mentioned in the introduction are also mentioned in the article. The idea of an introduction is to provide an overview of the article. The criticism for war crimes is misleading if only Sabra & Shatila are mentioned - when all the favourable things are mentioned the criticism also needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Anyway, this doesn't matter. You broke the rule. Bye bye, see you when you are unblocked in 24 hours. Perhaps you then are ready to discuss your edits.

Both editors in violation. Page protected while they work it out. ] ] 11:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
: it'd better to discuss everything before changing on such a controversial topic. --] 11:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
weird, admins look even on unformated reports. --] 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Online creation}}. {{3RRV|68.162.148.34}}:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
Reported by: ] 17:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*He appears to be the same person as ''User:Eggster and User:151.201.32.118'' in one of the earlier 3RR reports that still is on this page and hasn't been archived yet. A few minutes ago I gave a warning to 151.201.32.118 after he did 5 reverts, at which point he switched over to Eggster and has done at least 1 revert as Eggster, possibly more as I'm writing this. I'm not going to go to any effort to prove that it's a sock puppet since it'll just be the same as last time, but an admin can easily check. While logged in as Eggster, he has had warnings for multiple things in the past, and has blanked his talk page presumably thinking that everyone'll forget that he already had violated 3RR in the past and had been warned already. --] 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 68.162.148.34. I'm off for a bit now, so no time to look at Eggster for a bit... ] 18:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

* He's now using 66.101.59.248 and reverted again. I've restored page. ] 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

* OK, 68.162.148.34 is definitely Eggster. I'll block him too. ] 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

* And the talk page strongly suggests that 66.101.59.248 is the same; blocked. See-also ] ] 21:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Jonathan Sarfati}}. {{3RRV|Agapetos_angel}}:

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

Reported by: ] 18:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* The 4th revert is a complex revert within an edit that attempts to disguise the restoration of ]'s preferred wording.
* This is the 3rd 3RR violation for ] at this article in the last 2 weeks
* Page had been protected due to the actions of ]. ] filed misleading RfPP for unprotection, and was rv'ing again within 36 hours.

I can see bits of #4 that could be considered reverts. But can you make them explicit, please? ] 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Reverts (between 3 and 4) some are not word for word, but the tenor, the purpose, the spirit of the edit is effectively a revert:

Biography

3

He has also had papers published in ]ed ]s including co-authoring a "Letters to Nature"

4

Sarfati has had papers published in ]ed ]s ( available on ScienceDirect.com).

Writings

3
His latest book, ''Refuting Compromise'' is a rebuttal of the ] teachings of Dr. ], who attempts to harmonize the ] with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects.

4

His latest book, ''Refuting Compromise'' is a rebuttal of the ] teachings of Dr. ], who attempts to harmonize the ] with the belief that the earth is billions of years old, a position which Sarfati rejects.

Also, Agapetos_angel continued to place Chess above Scientist in all four edits. This in spite of the large difference in Safarti's prominence as a YEC (working, per AiG, as a scientist) and as a chess player. ] 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked (I thought I'd said that before... hmmm) ] 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

:My talk page outlines why that fourth revision was an edit not a revert. Also, the assertion that I continued to place subsection Chess above subsection Scientist in all four edits is a false statement, that the subsections remained in the same order before and after each of my edits. In fact the order had not changed, aside from a typo by FM that he restored, until # 4, which made that the first true change, <s>an edit in the overhaul</s> where subsection Moral Issues was moved down. This is not a revert, because the Chess subsection has remained above Scientist thoughout all the edits by all the editors since long before the page protection. This is another false accusation. ] 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:: The chess bit in indeed wrong, but the 4th edit is a revert. Please get over this, and return to productive edting. ] 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC).

===]===

Continually reverting in an edit war on ]. I have twice reverted, and he claims he has reverted over 8 times today. He is not the article's owner, nor is he an administrator. This user is making it impossible to retain concise, accurate article ]. ] 19:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please format correctly. If you can't be bothered to do that, why should anyone bother to investigate your report? ] 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

===]===
] violation on {{Article|Clay Aiken}}. {{3RRV|67.183.15.135}}:

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

Reported by: &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' Anon insists on adding improperly sourced, speculative information against consensus. Has been warned (see user talk page). &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked for 24 hours --] | ] 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
===]===

] violation on {{Article|Gordon Campbell}}. {{3RRV|Boggle99}}:

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

Reported by: <font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="grey">'''|'''</font>]<font color="grey">'''|'''</font><font color="darkgreen">]</font>-- 07:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
Boggle's edit breaks NPOV policy, reads like a Liberal press release, has party friendly speculation, deletes/mitigates criticism... see ] if interested... PLEASE revert to the standard version (tawker's above.) I have reached my revert limit.--<font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="grey">'''|'''</font>]<font color="grey">'''|'''</font><font color="darkgreen">]</font>-- 07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

:This is a new user, and there is no evidence that s/he was warned prior to breaking the 3rr. I have warned him/her, and instructed her/him not to edit the article again for 24 hours. ] 08:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|LJ Drama}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:

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

Warned about possible violation
Reported by: ] <small>(])</small> 21:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' As you can see in the history and in my talk page, LJ Drama airs nothing but rumour/gossip/PoV. If the content was changed to be more NPov, or if they cited their sources, or if they were willing to take into account that there is a more truthful version of events than their heavily slanted version, I just might concede. I stand by my deletions and will keep removing lies and rumour until my point has been made. -- ] 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
::*I'll note that no effort has been made in talk at the article to reach any sort of consensus on the section. --] <small>(])</small> 21:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for twenty-four hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

*Some agreement seems to have been reached, so I have unblocked the user. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on Template:Olympic games medal count. {{3RRV|CyclePat}}:

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

Reported by: ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* User AFD'd the article in bad faith to make a point, an admin removed the bad faith tags, however cyclepat kept reverting to his version with improper AFD tags.
:*This user was given a <span class="plainlinks"> in November. I've blocked for 24 hours, and I wouldn't object to an extension for the ] violation. &mdash;] 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Children of Bodom}}. {{3RRV|Leyasu}}:

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

Reported by: ] 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*Continually reverts to an older version of the page. User is clearly the only one in favour of this version, as these reverts have been undone by a number of users.
*Blocked twice before over the last few days for 3RR. Blocks don't appear to be much of a deterrent.

===]===

] violation on {{Article|Dick Cheney}}. {{3RRV|Hbutterfly}}:

''N.B. Times in ] for Australian EDST.''
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert
* 6th revert

Reported by: ]]<b>]</b> 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*New user mainly concerned with toning down any criticism of right-wing political interests in the US (eg. Bush, Cheney, Delay, FOX News). ]]<b>]</b> 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


===]===

] violation on {{Article|Mucky Pup}}. {{3RRV|JohnBWatt}}:

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

Reported by: ] 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*User continually reverts to last version posted by him. Will not accept any changes to "his" text. Semi-abusive and very abrasive in edit summaries. ] 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


===]===

] violation on {{Article|Jungle music}}. {{3RRV|Tactik}}:

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

Reported by: ] 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* Merge poll results were 8 to 1 in favour of mergin ] into ]. User refuses consensus, uses IPs and sockpuppets to vote against merge. Has also deleted various user comments in ] and ]. And broke 3RR. ] 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

== Report new violation ==
Place new reports '''ABOVE''' this header, using the template below. Do '''not''' edit the template itself.
See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get
the quickest responses. From the article's History page, '''use ] (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button''' to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted.

<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->

<pre><nowiki>===]===

] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USERNAME}}:

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

Reported by: ~~~~

'''Comments:'''
*</nowiki></pre>

<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->

]

Latest revision as of 02:31, 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)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    4. (second IP)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

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

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

    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)

    Categories: