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

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

Revision as of 16:31, 13 January 2011 editAndy Dingley (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers160,213 editsNo edit summary← 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}}
	<noinclude>{{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		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~148~~		\|counter = 490
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|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. -->
	{{Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude>
	__TOC__</noinclude>
	<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==
	<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	<!-- dummy edit -->

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*'''Page in question:''' {{pagelinks\|Hill Street Blues}}
	*'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Drmargi}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to: This current version is largely without any of my inputs as they are mostly reverted.
			#
			#
			#
			#

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: -9 january 22.26
	* 2nd revert: -10 january 00.35
	* 3rd revert: 10 january 07.33
	* 4th revert:-10 january 12.55
	*5th revert: 10 january 13.17
	*6th revert: -11 january 8.14
	*7th revert: -11 january 8.15
	*8th revert: -11 january 8.27
	*9th revert-11 january 8.28


	I posted a warning re this listing on Drmargi home talk page at 11:21, GMT 11 January 2011 and a link to this page at 11:43, GMT 11 January 2011
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Drmargi&action=edit&section=46}

			'''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:		'''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:'''
	Comments:On bad advice from a warring editor I began a thread on the Notability Noticeboard about this dispute as it was wrongly suggested that notability was a content and not a subject selection issue and an instant justification for reverts with no further elucidation. Here is the link to that discussion.


			] \| ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Both the discussion on the talk page and at the Notability Noticeboard seem to be stalled with no compromise in sight.There are also two ongoing discussions about it: one on the talk page of Drmargi as provided in the edit warring complaint notification above and one on that that of Debresser:
			*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) ==


			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lindy Li}} <br />
	I feel strongly that i am being bullied through reverts by a veteran editor and am very unhappy about it. The speed of the reversions, their nature, their being made largely without discussion, their vindictive edit listing description, and the proferred rationale are notable. i am not sure that i filled out the form above correctly --] (]) 11:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Napoleonjosephine2020}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Comment''': This is rich coming from an editor who seems to have no grasp of the concepts of ], ]. ], ] and a laundry list more. Over the last couple days, ] has attempted to bully, insult, manipulate and generally abuse the editorial process in order to add a) a list of now-famous actors in inconsequential roles to the article on ] solely because they are now famous, despite the efforts of three editors to discuss the issues associated with such an addition and b) to add a link, then a section to the article designed to showcase an external website about the guns used on the show with which the editor seems enchanted, despite it being reverted as unhelpful by more than one editor. Two other editors involved and I have attempted to discuss the issue with him/her and to make him/her aware of policy issues that govern the edits he/she is pushing, and have been treated to a spade of manipulative and abusive responses, largely devoid of any meaningful attempts to discuss in earnest and with an eye toward improvement of the article. Moreover, I would submit this report is retaliation for my having suggested on the talk page of ] that an ] for this editor's incivility might be in order, http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Debresser#Hill_Street_Blues a report I ultimately decided not to make. This is the kind of playground tactic used by a bully who's been caught and is attempting to blame others for his own acts
	:: Depresser feels that an external site featuring 143 high quality still shots of scenes from the subject of the article is irrelevant and should not be mentioned. Drmargi feels the photos are "unreliable" and should not be mentioned. I have sought clarification of what they mean by these strange assertions and adjectives but have received no response but more reverts citing pages that have no bearing on the matter. i have written long rationales for inclusion-they remain unanswered as do direct questions for clarification and compromise.--] (]) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	The editor has repeatedly refused to discuss with an eye toward resolution of the issue at hand, has been repeatedly warned about his/her incivility on the article's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues#One_off_appearances_by_those_who_went_on_to_fame_and_fortune, http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues#scholarly_analysis_and_print_media_reception_and_viewing_figures, http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues#Reversion_of_Guns_section; on the notability noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Hill_Street_Blues-.22Notability.22_of_cast_list, and on my own and others' talk pages, who has made a series of false and spurious allegations regarding my conduct and that of two editors (contained in the discussions linked above), and who has generally failed to operate in any sort of good faith.
			#
			#
			#
			#

	I do not believe I have violated 3RR, having reverted any given edit no more than twice, always in an attempt to return the editor to the discussion process when he/she has attempted to use a comment by an editor to force a new set of edits. Each attempt has been met with an increasingly aggressive attempt on the part of this editor to force his/her edits, uncivil behavior and a general lack of willingness to find a resolution to the issue that is satisfactory to all concerned. I would suggest that ] has very likely violated ] him/herself and has unquestionably been an active edit warrior.

	I will concede that I could have chosen to step back earlier, which I'm doing now, but felt that I was operating within policy, and was mindful of ] throughout. ] (]) 15:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	I am delighted to see a willingness to seek consensus and dialogue after a morning of 4 undiscussed reversions in one half hour period from Drmargi Pure ] . I note that Drmargi earned an edit warring 24 hour ban a week ago and wonder if a pattern is emerging. The thrice repeated assertion that my "petulant edits" and content suggestions could be ignored while the "real work" went on was particularly hurtful. I think that once some veteran editors get a critical mass of edits carried and reverts unchallenged that an ownership mindset sets in. The language used and actions taken reflect this. It is hard to interact with or to find compromise. --] (]) 15:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
	*{{AN3\|protectedexplain}} Said dispute resolution to be pursued '''elsewhere'''.] (]) 17:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	: Is that it here then ? " No 24 hour bans ? Go seek a mediator ?--] (]) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	== IPs reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected 1 week) ==

	'''~~Page~~:''' ~~{{pagelinks\|Hattori Hanzō}}~~ <br />		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

			Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Two IPs have been going at each other for three days on this article. Hell if I know who is right, but it should be looked into and/or locked down.--] (]) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			:The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? ] (]) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- 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. -->
			::@]
			::"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) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''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. -->
			#
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			#
			#
			# (second IP)

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*I've just filed a request for temporary semi-protection at ]; seems like the best option (especially as there doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation). In the meantime maybe it's worth opening a discussion on the talk page and inviting both IP addresses to discuss the issues. <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">''']''' </font>]]</span> 13:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	*:And the article has been protected for one week. Hopefully that'll be enough time to persuade the IP editors to discuss. <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">''']''' </font>]]</span> 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) ==

			'''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
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shakzor}}

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's 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. -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Previous version reverted to:
			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)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
	<!-- 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 -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Marc Benioff}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|99.98.190.59}}
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	First Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	Discussion followied involving multiple editors. ] (]) 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# {{diff2\|1265027253\|18:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	After making my first change I have addressed my reasons, basing it on wikipedia guidelines on the articles ]. I received support on wikipedia guidelines grounds. I have avoided responding to personal attacks, such as the further evidence backing ]. I requested help on where I should go to get help ((very understandedly on rereading but not intended (not trying to get help, just knowing where I should go)) read as canvasing and counseled, i erred badly in my wording there, sorry). This was read and responded to in support of my position (with the canvasing caveat). Further talk (on the talk page and my own) has not gone beyond personal attacks and non encyclopedia reasons (eg it's useful). I believe my position is supported by consensus. A new editor, Shakzor, has made 4 reverts in 26 Hours (technicly outside 24 hours but close enough IMO to be gaming the system by being just out) and has included in their diff comments an understanding of of what is happening "ongoing loosely policy-based edit war" , and an attack on my motives "Reverting attempted castration of article" . I admit I have come close myself (31 hours) I have attempted to engage in talk, both on the talk page as stated above and later in diff comments , (as Shakzor appears to have been reading per their responses). Shakzor did finaly respond on the talk page with a (mild) personal attack and a threat to edit war ] (]) 15:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1265009969\|16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:I reverted his edit and the page has been protected for 3 weeks. '']'' (]) 11:51 11 January 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1264902002\|03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	::Editor states they will continue reverting after portection expiers . ] (]) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1264865734\|23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:::Now he's on the fast track for a block. '']'' (]) 12:49 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::Ok, i have conferred with ] about this, submitting the conversation on Shkazor's talk page. We'll see how it turns out. '']'' (]) 13:00 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for the interest. Unfortunately, you all seem to be focusing on what I am doing, and not why I am doing it. And yes, I just recently created this account, though I have been contributing casually for a very long time as a guest user (see my user page for that previous IP). I made an account specifically so people would not think I am just some random user out to stir up trouble. And while stirring up trouble is not what I specifically intend to do, it is a very likely result of my methods at the moment. To those who would see me blocked, I hope you are satisfied with your bureaucracy. Good day to you all. ] (]) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' 48 hours for edit warring, per ] This block can be lifted if you will agree to accept any consensus about the links which is found on the talk page or at a noticeboard. ] (]) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: The parties will avoid each other for seven days) ==
			# {{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:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Time travel urban legends}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1265024924\|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Slatersteven}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>

			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Dune: Part Two}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ChasePlowman2014}}
	The first three are standard revets, the last two being ] to argue that if one usage of theory can be used, then it should be used ''in every instance'' throughout the article. As the other party in this matter, I am not blameless - I have reverted three times in the article, and growing somewhat disenchanted with the user in question as per their willingness to edit collaboratively with me. To whit, I've self-edited elsewhere (or sought to, but edit-conflicts precluded such), and have been using the discussion page more. I desire not so much that the user be blocked for 3RR but rather that they edit collaboratively.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , followed by request to self-revert to avoid 3RR violation .

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{diff2\|1265161751\|12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
	- ] (]) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (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:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{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:'''
	:After posting this the user not only does not inform me but actaualy asks for a truce ]. In fact the user clearly disguses the warning as a comment about him not breaching 3RR. I would also poiont out the users own breach of the rule ]]]]. I would also point out the users admission that one of these reverts was not based on content but the user who made the edit ] clear edit warring even without the other difs. Many of my 'reverts' are not in fact reverts at all but new material insertesd to adress a lcear POV bias (that person a's veiw is a theory but persons B view is a susgestion).] (]) 17:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1265080353\|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*Perhaps I'm missing something, but I count two reverts (the second and third reverts listed by Jack Sebastian), and the rest are standard edits. ] (]) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	**My apologies - allow me to spell it out a bit more clearly. The Slatersteven has been marginalizing the noteworthiness aspects of the reported incident for nigh on three months now. The edits he reverts are almost exclusively mine, and mine alone. The first revert undid an edit of mine. the subsequent edits after the third are - as noted before - ] edits, akin to strawman edits. I thought you might have wanted to look a little bit deeper before responding to Slatersteven's email request for assistance. - ] (]) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	***Slatersteven has not "emailed me for his assistance." You are also not correctly characterizing his edits or the locus of the dispute, which is ''you'' editing against consensus. The edits you cite are not "pointy" or "strawman" edits, but rather routine edits you don't like. Slatersteven appears to be correct that this report has no merit. ] (]) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	****Yeah, I am going to avoid a lot of the drama that accompanies this sort of discussion and cut to the chase. You were not listed in the 'what links here' portion of this page until after SS commented. That means that you were either ] my edits, were requested to contribute via unknown method, or magically used your spidey-sense to know that this was being discussed. I don't really care which, but it bears pointing out. - ] (]) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	*****You may want to ], as well as the actual content of ], before you make baseless accusations of canvassing and stalking. Also I wanted to point out that Jack Sebastian's comment above that the "the first revert undid an edit of mine" is incorrect. It was not a reversion of anyone, but an edit changing four words. ] (]) 19:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:This is a frivolus and contentious attmept to bully and inidimidate based either on ignornace or (as I bleive based upopn the dishonest way this has been conducted) deliberate ignoring of the rule.] (]) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	::How so? You were advised as to your third revert. You were advised subsequently to self-revert; you chose not to. What part of this is bullying, intimidation or dishonest? Perhaps you should explain how you are defending your reverts instead. Maybe you thought that you had to protect the article from me? - ] (]) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::When you provided a link to this you disguised it as a link to 3RR. Whilst at the same time saying that we shold lay down the gauntlet. That was dishiniest as you had lunched this prior to offering a reboot in our relashionship.] (]) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::You were advised of your impending breach, followed by your breach and a suggestion that you self revert, to cure the breach. You chose to ignore it. I don't think I'm required to point out the obvious three times in a row. - ] (]) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::Your indentating makes it difficult to follow youe posts please try to better indent. As to your warnings. The fact is you hid your informing me of this, in a way tht had to be deliberate. The fact is you saud you wanted to start afresh having in fact allready launched this (thus how could I resppond before this to your offer of a fresh start).] (]) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	I think an admin needs to look at these false accustions of breaching 3RR and of canvasing (difs please). Should I take this issue to AnI?] (]) 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:Perhaps it's an assumption; where there's smoke, there might not always be fire, but certainly something generating the smoke. - ] (]) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (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)
	Now 4 reverts on time travel urban legends ] ] ] ]. After reporting me the user now breaches the rule hi8mslef, and altering the text it a very POV way.] (]) 18:38, 11 January 2011 (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)
	:Er, I think not. Is it your intent to submit any copyedit I submit as edit-warring, SS? Wow, that is going to have a chilling effect on any edits I happen to make in a Misplaced Pages article.
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	:You might want to look at the second fourth edit again; it fixes problems with grammar, flow and readability. I did remove the supposition about WWN, as that appears to be a personal viewpoint. We don't allow that here in Misplaced Pages. - ] (]) 18:47, 11 January 2011 (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>(] \| ])</small> 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	::A copy edit does not alter the meaning, your edits do (especialy the fourth edit which changes the text from fictioal to real), except for one of the reverts which is a reversion of is the very edit you claim of my is a reversion (anbd thus counts towards 3RR).] (]) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (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)
	:::Um, except that the reporting of the matter ''is'' real. We are not concerned whether the dude is lying through his teeth or whatnot. The litmus for inclusion is ]. We write non-evaluatively, leaving that task to the sources we reference. - ] (]) 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
	::, hmmm. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 18:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Lol, that's what I thought. But the dude was arrested and promptly skipped bail. The digest (which apparently has editorial oversight and qualifies as a RS for its referenced stories) seems weird as heck, but they are the only ones aside from WWN reporting on the guy. What sorts of sources are you going to have about some nut who claims to be cheating because he's from the future? - ] (]) 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::Not an RS for a derogatory fact about a living person. Good catch. ] (]) 19:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
	I would like to ask this to be closed and that admins take a closer look at ]'s activities here.] (]) 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Callmehelper}}
	:Of course you would. As for me, I would be content with the user simply being advised by someone other than me to not edit-war and, when advised of impending 3RR violations, to stop and self-evaluate. It's their first time at bat here, so the aforementioned might do wonders as to SS's disposition and spirit of collaboration.
	:I agree that I need to try and work more with people with whom I fundamentally disagree with, and develop a thicker skin where they are concerned. - ] (]) 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	::You do understand what a revert is?] (]) 19:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::I perceive that both Slatersteven and Jack Sebastian have been behaving badly. One is being aggressive and the other has been making personal attacks here in the 3RR report. Each has reverted three times on ] and they are also reverting each other today at ]. I am open to a promise that they will avoid each other and any common articles for seven days to allow the problem to cool down. Otherwise, sanctions for edit warring should be considered. ] (]) 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::I can live with that. What advice would you offer on how to progress after the week is up? The other user hasn't really demonstrated a willingness to collaborate. - ] (]) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::::Would this include this mediation request(assuming it goes ahead which looks doubtful)] and notice boards? I assume that from your wording it just applies to articles. Hut I thought it best to confirm. Which in this case is two. So if that is the case then OK.] (]) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, you can both participate in the mediation. You would just need to avoid editing the same articles or article talk pages until the seven days are up. ] (]) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	::::::Fair enough.] (]) 20:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Result''' -- Per the above agreement, the parties will avoiding editing the same articles or article talk pages for seven days. They may still participate in the existing mediation. I encourage them to avoid complaints at noticeboards about one another for the same period. ] (]) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Both main editors involved blocked, 24 hours and 3 hours) ==
			#
			#
			#
			#

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of supernova observation}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Thorwald}}

	<!-- 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:

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_supernova_observation&diff=prev&oldid=406220051
	* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_supernova_observation&action=historysubmit&diff=406406731&oldid=406297340
	* 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_supernova_observation&action=historysubmit&diff=407290482&oldid=407281779
	* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_supernova_observation&action=historysubmit&diff=407290482&oldid=407281779
	* 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_supernova_observation&action=historysubmit&diff=407290482&oldid=407281779

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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 -->

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Link to edit warring / 3RR warning: ]

			<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)
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

			:It's me @].
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			:'''Clarification by my side ; '''
	Thorwald seems determined to force his preferred date format upon the article, despite being aware of the ] convention for deciding what date format to use in an article. Torwald has the convention is "rather silly". ] (]) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
			:Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			:* ''Disputes details'' ;
	*{{AN3\|bb\|24 hours and 3 hours}} Less to RJHall because he was, in fact, following the Manual of Style. However, note that Arbcom, on their finding of the matter, recommended not revert warring: ]. ] (]) 04:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
			:# 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)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 ~~hours~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Gokkun~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Herostratus~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
	<!-- 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. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to: , removed by the commons delinker bot during a temporal deletion. It was restored soon after.
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 01st removal: 8 May 2010
	* 02nd removal: 8 May 2010
	* 03rd removal: 11 May 2010 he then protected the article in the imageless version(]) until 21 May
	* 04th removal: 1 August 2010
	* 05th removal: 3 August 2010
	* 06th removal: 5 August 2010
	* 07th removal: 2 September 2010
	* 08th removal: 6 September 2010
	* 09th removal: 8 November 2010
	* 10th removal: 10 January 2011
	* 11th removal: 10 January 2011
	* 12th removal: 11 January 2011
	* 13th removal: 11 January 2011

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	The image was subject of a RfC , and, to his credit, he started a discussion ]. But in his last edit he removes again and insists that the image has to remain removed while the discussion is ongoing.

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] and ]
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ], ], ], ]

	<u>Comments: </u> <br />		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	In September 2010 he was already given a final warning, by two uninvolved admins, for making personal remarks while removing the images from Gokkun and ] , related to ]. In October 2010 he was warned again for ignoring consensus, ignoring BRD, "substituting your personal opinion for policy or its interpretation", edit warring, inadequately closing a RfC where he was also an involved party, "disregard the fact that '''consensus must change''' to be able to remove the existing image", "''If you further disrupt these pages by removing or replacing the existing image without there being a definition of a consensus formed (and by an uninvolved third party) to do so, I will block you for disrupting the project. You have been warned previously by an admin, and again recently by me. You may dispute the grounds - but if so, please refer specifically to policy or guideline - or get a third opinion. In the meantime, don't disrupt the pages. (...) Again, your judgement is seriously in question''"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Grail Movement}}
	I menaced Herostratus with 3RRN if he removed the image again. He then opened a discussion on the talk page, but he insisted that no consensus in the expired RfC meant no image, and that the image has to stay removed until this new discussion was finished: "''the default state of the article is to not have the image, and there's no consensus to restore it (see thread above)''" in ]. Note that this is false: the image was first added in September 2008 and it stayed 22 months until Herostratus started removing it in May 2010, semi-protecting the article to prevent the restoral by an IP. Several editors (including myself) have since restored the image with assorted arguments in edit summaries and talk page comments. The only removal not made by Herostratus himself was made in 22 November 2010 because the RfC was still open.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Folawiki}}
	In summary: Herostratus has been edit warring, using his personal opinion instead of policy, and disregarding consensus over a period of 7 months, and during that period he was given final warning by uninvolved admins in two separate occasions. --] (]) 21:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
	:With all due respect, I don't have time to read through the history here. However, I do see a clear case of edit warring against multiple editors and after warnings. Uncool. {{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} ] (]) 04:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: stale) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Languages of Slovenia}} <br />
			# {{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 ] (])"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Doncsecz}}
			# {{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:'''
	<!-- 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\|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:'''
	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>
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			Cult whitewashing. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- 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 -->
			*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	The user ] continually readds the section 'Prekmurian language' to the article 'Languages of Slovenia' though it has been continually removed from the article by different users (supported by ], ], me and at least two anonymous editors). Using Google, I haven't found a single source that would list Prekmurian language as one of the languages of Slovenia (if not counting Misplaced Pages and its mirrors). BTW, the user was blocked numerous times already for different reasons, including attacks/harrasment and edit warring., , ,

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Trisha Krishnan}}
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TheHappiestEditor}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|s}} This happened two weeks ago, and the reporter is just as guilty as the reported. ]. ] (]) 04:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:Please, the administrators, that the affirmations is one-track from the Slovene users. I have evidences about the Communistic propaganda, what was dump on the Prekmurian literature and Prekmurian authors. Few Slovene is affected by the Communistic Propaganda . ]<sup>]</sup> 08:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	::Another searchers from the Museum of Murska Sobota, for ex. Franc Kuzmič also attest this facts. Kuzmič is active contributor in the Pentecostal Church Prekmurje and also cultivate the Prekmurian. Doremo, Eleasar and others be a stranger this informations. Doremo moreover is not Slovene. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	:::'''The point is:''' In the communistic Yugoslavia by 40 Year was repressed the Prekmurian. For 1991 the Prekmurian ressurect, Radios, Tidings, Books and the Church again cultivate the Prekmurian: ''The homeland regards Prekmurje not as a part of Slovenia but something peculiar within its borders… It is unthinkable for two Prekmurians to speak with each other in anything but Prekmurian. I used to meet the former President of the Republic Milan Kučan at public events quite often. We always spoke Prekmurian, it would have felt odd to use literary Slovenian, since he is from Prekmurje too. Others joked about us, asking why are we so secretive. When I met a compatriot in Australia, Africa or America, we immediately started to talk in our own language. This is our language.'' (], ], 2007)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: both blocked 6 hours) ==
			# {{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."
			# {{diff2\|1265165246\|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)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past}}
			#
			#
			#

			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|New Age Retro Hippie}}

			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	'''Time reported:''' 23:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
			# - putting fake sources/infomation
			# - putting fake sources/infomation

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().
			#

	''Diffs ~~are~~ ~~listed~~ ~~from~~ ~~oldest to~~ ~~newest,~~ ~~dates~~ ~~are~~ in ~~UTC~~''		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	# () <small>(edit summary: "Revert. A video game article does not have to be broad in its coverage to the point where it covers in depth anything outside of itself. ] is a GA without having a remake to its name.")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "Again, you have literally no right to do this. Consensus may not be based on a vote, but no one agrees with you on this.")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "Fixed.")</small>

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

			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)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]

			:{{u\|TheHappiestEditor}}, please respond to these allegations. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	User continuously reverted information necessary to fulfill the good article criterion "broad coverage", blind-reverting edits without incorporating other fixes into new revisions and deleting a section that was previously present.

	—] (]) 23:~~17,~~ 11 ~~January~~ ~~2011 (UTC)~~		== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	:To note, the reversion that was made, the initial reversion, was Prime Blue's. Upon reverting his edit - an action which corresponds with the actions of "bold, revert, discuss." Prime Blue may have followed this in the simplest sense of doing all actions, but he did not follow the guideline that he should have left it to its original state until the discussion was complete. I must also add that this is a noticeboard for edit warring - something that you, Prime Blue, did. It takes two to tango, and you very clearly violated it. 3RR does not just exist to deal with people who make three reversions, but anyone who knows not to edit war is in violation of it. So I would suggest you get off your high horse before you argue that your actions were okay because you made less reversions. - ] ] ] 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|bb\|6 hours}}. No innocent partners here. ] (]) 04:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
	== ] ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|103.84.130.238}}
	Seems this one could be solved by simply splitting and disambiguating the two biographies contained on the article page. ] (]) 12:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	It appears this has been handled by an administrator blocking ] after a request at ]. -] (]) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: not blocked) ==
			# {{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:'''
	''and''
			#
			#

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	]<br/>
	]<br/>
	]<br/>
	]<br/>
	]<br/>

	'''supported by IPs:'''

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

			Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''as possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts of'''
			: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) ==
	]<br/>
	]<br/>
	]<br/>
	]<br/> (who is the ])

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}}
	**''The reason the above banned users are mentioned is their continued use of sock accounts''

	'''~~Page~~:''' {{~~pagelinks~~\|~~Caucasian~~ ~~Albania‎~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Barda, Azerbaijan}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Shusha}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tartarchay}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Qarqar River}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Utik‎}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Heyvali (village)}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ermenikend}} <br />

	'''~~Users~~ ~~being~~ ~~reported~~:'''~~<br/>~~		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	{{userlinks\|Xebulon}}<br/>
	{{userlinks\|Aram-van}}<br/>
	{{userlinks\|Vandorenfm}}<br/>
	{{userlinks\|Gorzaim}}<br/>
	{{userlinks\|Oliveriki}}<br/>
	{{userlinks\|ASALA7.08.1982}}<br/>

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1265621270\|21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265402736\|19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265399005\|19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{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:'''
	Previous version before the edit-warring began (] article as the basis for showcasing the type of edit warring and violation of 3RR)

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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 edit warring / 3RR warning: , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , ,

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts have been made to resolve any issues on talk pages of related articles these accounts have been reverting in , , , ,

			Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (]) ] (]) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			* {{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)
	The accounts which are being reported have started editing in a Wiki-professional manner (i.e. it's obvious these users are not newbies and are well experienced in editing Misplaced Pages pages) right after infamous puppeteers ] (banned on 28 October 2010), ] (banned on 14 March 2010 but its latest known sockpuppet account ] was banned on 21 November 2010) were blocked by administrators. ] is mentioned in this report along with the Andranikpasha and Meowy because he (they) has a long history of sock-puppeteering and abuse of multiple accounts. Please study the history of their activity as sockpuppets ], ] and ]. The edits by ] are quite similar on behavioral to Andranikpasha. In any case, Aram-van seems to be using sock accounts by himself (the report was filed by ].

	*{{userlinks\|Xebulon}} started an active edit warring on ] article but was eventually stopped by an administrator ]. Most of constitute either reverts or additions of POV. The user has not made any significant contribution to Misplaced Pages by either creating or expanding an article, especially outside of controversial topics. Something tells me the account has been created for disruptive editing and/or making controversial edits for and on behalf of established but restricted editors who are a party to ]. He has been warned against ] and ] three times by me, two times by two other uninvolved editors and once against ] by another user.

	*{{userlinks\|Aram-van}} this account has been created less than a month ago and immediately started his disruptive editing spree adding POV without any discussions, just adding "let's discuss" comment after my appeal to him but still reverting to POV versions before anything has been discussed. See , , , , , , , , , , . He even without any attempts to comment, discuss the issue, while actually the request for moving the page by another user was denied in the first place and uninvolved editors have already presented their arguments against the move on the talk page of the article. This shows his lack of concern and outright disrespect to other editors, including neutral editors. Please see the whole discussion here: ] and here ]. Aram-van did the same thing with (a proper name of the river as per neutral sources). The ] has been warned several times on his talk page already and has been blocked once for disruptive editing. He too has not made any significant contributions to Misplaced Pages and restricted himself to adding POV and making blind reverts. He even filed an SPI against me at ], accusing me and other established users of sockpuppeting (in fact one of Armenian users had already mentioned me in an ]) but please, for God's sakes, allow administrators to run SPI against me and other mentioned users, so that he and his peers see the results. The fact that is an established user with substantial history of contributions and that I am an editor who has ] makes me wonder what he thought when he was filing his report.

	*{{userlinks\|Vandorenfm}}, {{userlinks\|Oliveriki}} and {{userlinks\|Gorzaim}} are not even worth talking about since these three accounts are obvious socks supporting the other two accounts Xebulon and Aram-van in their efforts, and have no contribution history whatsoever, except for reverting in ], ] and other articles of their joint POV activity. They can be from different geographic regions but apparently operate under guidance Xebulon and Aram-van. Again, all three as much as Xebulon and Aram-van have made no significant contributions and seem to be professional in editing in Misplaced Pages.

	*{{userlinks\|ASALA7.08.1982}} was also created around the time the other accounts started editing, and around the time ] was banned. His edits include addition of controversial POV as well. See ] for example, where he added information out of nowhere, unsourced and POV. Look at this nonsense unsourced summary comment . Moreover, his incivil comments ("honoured demagogue") on are not a sign of good faith.

	I sincerely apologize for mass-reporting but these account deserve to be looked at all at once because their activity is apparently coordinated. I have no problem discussing any problems and issues with established users, (specifically if it's content dispute) who do make efforts to discuss before adding POV or making blind reverts. Most of these users are also restricted by AA2, hence are cautious with disruptive editing. That's why I believe the accounts being reported have careless users, hence the disurptive editing. ] (]) 19:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	----------------------
	] is an abusive account that apparently found a new way of edit warring: reporting his adversaries to administrators by falsely accusing them of transgressions that he himself was accused of several times recently. Sock/meatpuppetry accusations are nonsense.

	] was '''blocked''' here , as early as in March 2010. Here, despite the warning, ] '''continued edit warring''' and was '''warned''' more severely here . Shortly thereafter he was '''topic-banned''' to edit article on Armenia and Azerbaijan for as many as three months here . Now, ] emerged from this ban and went back to his habit of edit warring and blunt refusal to engage in civilized dialogue when invited to do so. ]’s most widespread type of abuse are unreferenced reverts that he fails to address on talk pages.
	Here are the examples. When asked in discussions to present evidence from external sources or from stable Misplaced Pages articles, ] evades dialogue .
	]’s report with alleged 3RR violations are false. ] does not understand the policy on ]. ] operates in company of his favorite meatpuppets:

	]<br/>
	]<br/>

	] and ] in their meatpupetting operations use the same language “next time you will be reported” like here and here , which raises the possibility that the two may be sockpuppets.

	I suggest to block ] for 1 year, a measure applied to his "enemies" ] et al.

	] (]) 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|not}} This is the wrong forum: please head to ]. ] (]) 12:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
	::I understand this seems more of an SPI case, but how is this handled when several newly created accounts make articles a battleground by adding and reverting from different accounts against one or two opposing users. It is evident from the articles history that one removes the information, the other one reverts when the that information is restored. That's the point of this report filed to prevent edit-warring by several accounts. What do you suggest I do when these accounts add/remove information in controversial articles without discussing first? ] (]) 14:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Oregon Ducks}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|173.170.135.174}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected two months. Edit-warring by IPs who do not participate on the talk page. This upsurge of unusual edits may be due to a recent football game. If the problem goes away, the semi could be lifted. ] (]) 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Falkland Islands}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|209.36.57.248}}

	<!-- 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. -->

	See , threatening edit warring and has been disrupting page for weeks. Blocked numerous times already and uses a number of IP socks to evade blocks. ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|a\|two weeks}} ] (]) 12:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Blue Army (Poland)}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hallersarmy}}

	Previous version reverted to:

	* 1st revert: "redo changes which alters the meaning of the paragraph. The subject is Jews in Haller's army, NOT pogroms."
	* 2nd revert: "undid revision. Subject is the existence of Jews in Haller's Army, nothing about politically what they were or not guilty of doing. People can read the originals on their own. Stay on topic."
	* 3rd revert: "Faustian is changing the entire meaning of the section. He is pushing his agenda. Desist or continue the edit war."
	* 4th revert: "Told to take my changes to the talk page, but previous changes to my work were made without using the talk page. I insist take it to the Dispute review Board."

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	I asked ] and ] to discuss their disagreement on the article's Talk page but, as the edit summary for the fourth diff indicates, Hallersarmy doesn't wish to follow my advice. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' 24 hours for 3RR violation. ] (]) 06:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mather Field / Mills}} plus some twenty other pages<br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|DanTD}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd 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 -->
	While the above is only one revert, it is one in a large series of page moves with the same pattern. On december 28, DanTD moved more than 20 articles about Sacramento RT stations from their undisambiguated name to a disambiguated one, with the edit summary "New name complies with naming conventions". These pages had been at the previous, undisambiguated name since May 2009, so a rather stable situation.

	After discussion with DanTD (see section below), I reverted these moves per ], and asked him to take it to ] if he disagreed. However, DanTD moved them all again to his preferred title. I would like that DanTD was advised to stop edit warring, that someone would revert these moves (per ], not to take a position in the actual debate), and that DanTD was again advised to take this to ] if he still disagrees with this.

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

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First attempt, with request for clarification of which naming convention he referred to, and request to undo his moves. Further discussion, still asking for a naming convention supporting his moves. Two days later, I indicated that I would revert him since I believed his moves were against our guidelines.

	After he indicated that he was willing to edit war, I pointed him explicitly to ] and ]: . Meanwhile, he started a discussion at ], where the only other person who answered, ], stated that "I actually don't find any mentioning of applying parentheses OUTSIDE of WP:DISAMBIG, so I suppose it is better to avoid it altogether." and later on "Please read ]". ] (]) 08:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*Other users at WP:Trains ''did'' find a problem with Fram's edits when I brought it to their attention. I don't believe he paid any attention to the existing standards with other systems. I only indicated that I was willing to engage in an edit war, when he refused to see the error of his renaming of these articles and insisted on undoing them. ----] (]) 11:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
	:Apart from the fact that you should never engage in an edit war, you still have not shown me any standards or the "naming conventions" you claimed as the reason for your moves. The only relevant naming convention I was able to find, the main one, directly contradicts your moves. But whether the moves were correct or not could be resolved at ], ''not'' by edit warring. You choose the latter option instead... ] (]) 11:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
	::You never even paid attention to how other stations were named in the United States, and you completley ignored the problems of leaving the system out of the name. Furthermore, when I created a dab page for one of the names, you disregarded that, and changed all the names back. Your edits are the problem in this case. ----] (]) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|not}} This does not rise to the level of a blockable offense for edit warring. A more appropriate venue is ] if the pattern of behavior is disruptive, although I suspect ] may be the more appropriate route, as this was a clear violation of ]. Although I can't put my finger on why I feel like I've frequently seen DanTD's name come up before regarding edit wars, so it may (or may not) be a long term behavior issue. ] (]) 12:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|]}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Lsorin}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Lsorin's edits today are broadly those of the 10th , the prime intention off which is to re-introduce the contentious statement
	: "The ''']''', designed by ], was the first ] aircraft. "
	as the first sentence of the lead.

	This is a long-running issue in this article, and in related articles. It is complex, but the wiki-history of it on the relevant talk pages should make the position clearer. There are complex technical issues, there are conflicting sources, but there is a fairly well agreed consensus position (with this one editor and some IPs, possibly their socks, against) that has a neutral form of words mentioning the claims, but not making this absolute statement of primacy, and definitely not making it as the first sentence of a lead.

	This editor has a long track record, with blocks, of POV push on exactly this point. A one-week block in Decemeber is discussed at ]

	I reverted the same POV push a couple of days ago. Lsorin then raised ''my'' reversion at AN/EW , and it was closed as "No violation"

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

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: ] and archives. There are months of this, other editors apart from myself.

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	This has gone beyond the boundaries of reasonable behaviour towards other editors. The price of accuracy might be eternal vigilance, but that's a price too high to ask of exhausted editors against a single-minded edit warrior. A long block is now in order, and is justified on purely protective grounds. ] (]) 16:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:24, 27 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.

Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. Mei23448 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. Mei23448 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: The problem persists, Mei23448 and User:PaleoFile continue their edit war / vandalism on both pages. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the notification, Jens Lallensack. Both blocked indefinitely, the latter unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

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

The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Napoleonjosephine2020

"This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. Kline • talk • contribs 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. Kline • talk • contribs 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). Here’s the exchange, for those curious. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(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)

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
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 ;

Firstly , I edit Ambedkar Jayanti check history of that page from here to final version
process of reverting by others and my responses

- 1st Revert My response then again revert and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes see then i thought matter would be solved.
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)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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)

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:

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)"
02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265464633 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265460975 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240888069 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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:

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."
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)

- putting fake sources/infomation
- putting fake sources/infomation
- 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)

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:

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)

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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:

21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265440086 by ToBeFree (talk)"
19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265401281 by Codename AD (talk)"
19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395978 by Codename AD (talk)"
18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395008 by Aoidh (talk)"
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)

Blocked indefinitely Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. Jauerback/_dude. 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: