Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:22, 25 June 2011 edit2over0 (talk | contribs)17,247 edits →User:Jimjilin reported by User:Moni3 (Result: 24 h): closing← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:46, 24 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,318 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive490) (bot 
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 = 161 |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. -->
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude>
__TOC__</noinclude>
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
<!-- dummy edit -->


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


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


'''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:
#
#
#
#


<!-- 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:


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
This is not an edit war in the traditional sense that there is a dispute with intransigent parties. There was a bit of a tussle between Limulus and 2 editors (including myself) over the section "Naxism and homosexuals", but that appears settled. But because of the tussle Limulus committed 2 reverts. Then a 3rd revert on a different issue. The real problem is that they don't think that the '''bright line''' of 3RR applies to them. They wrote "Fixing the article (e.g. putting refs where they should actually go) is not edit warring." In fact, they were in a mini-edit war with 2 editors over addition of POV content. Right after that statement they ignored my warning and reverted.] (]) 03:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|pe}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the linked versions and reverts, first, if one checks the history the one immediately before Lionelt begins editing is not 435129249; I find it interesting that he has selected the edit immediately before mine in which I commented "fixed last bit of damage by suspected sockpuppet Truthinmyheart" (see ]).
*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
*:1.
*:2.
*:3.
*:4.
*:5.
*:6.
*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
*:Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) ] (]) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. ] (]) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's ]. ] | ] 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked 48 hours) ==
So we need to look at *435214017* as a starting point.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Robert de Quincy}} <br />
The end of Lionlet's first batch of edits is
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Pipera}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Given that we are both doing batches of editing (note that I most recently started on the 18th and have been in a bit of a marathon of edits since), I don't see how even if I reverted *all* of that batch of edits (which I did not) that that would count for more than one, but let's look at the specific examples given:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* "1st revert" "diff=prev&oldid=435206242"
#
???? That is the difference between two of *my* edits *before* Lionelt even started! FAIL!
#
* "2nd revert" "diff=435307849&oldid=435255378"
#
Lionelt had removed a wikilink to ] and I added it back in with the comment "please keep a link to Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust in this section; The Pink Swastika as per its page is clearly fringe theory WP:FRINGE" BUT then user Nuujinn removed it again in the next edit saying "no, let's keep it nice and flat and neutral, just the facts." At this point (while I disagreed somewhat) I decided to let the matter rest and I did NOT re-add it. This is NOT "a mini-edit war with 2 editors over addition of POV content". So why is Lionelt complaining about something that was resolved in his favor before he got back to editing again and AFAIK without him having to ask for intervention? To prove a rhetorical point here rather than be pragmatic about the community editing process? WEAK.
#
* "3rd revert" "diff=435311589&oldid=435309087"
#
The next edit of mine, "Shuffle sections; keep child-related items near top, fix ref issue, title tweak"
#
This is several changes that are not exactly a rv. Before Lionelt's edits, I had put three sections into a "Fringe views" section. Lionelt had taken those three and another and put them into two new sections. I then put the one back (though not exactly the same way; I felt it needed to be readded as it was suporting the basic theme of its parent-section: "the imperative to protect children from this sort of harm became a driving force in her life.") and split the remainder up differently, modifying the names a bit. I continued to tweak the arrangement in my later edits until I settled on a still different arrangement . The ref issue (mentioned earlier) is definitely NOT a rv; Lionelt had reworded a section in a way that incorrectly sourced a quote to a different ref: that was me fixing a mistake Lionelt had introduced into the article.
* "4th revert" "diff=435383284&oldid=435375292"
Yes! Finally, an honest-to-goodness revert! But wait, look at the comments...


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
18:45, 20 June 2011 Lionelt (talk | contribs) (44,985 bytes) (→Images of children, crime and violence: what do Reagan & Regnery have to do with this?)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ,
19:53, 20 June 2011 Limulus (talk | contribs) (45,264 bytes) (Undid revision 435375292 by Lionelt (talk) please see my talk page; Regnery is mentioned later in that section and Reagan has to do with the social conservatives.)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
(note: my talk page regarding this: ])


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
21:28, 20 June 2011 Limulus (talk | contribs) (45,219 bytes) (→Images of children, crime and violence: removing "during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan" due to a WP:SYNTH concern by Lionel on my talk page)


Pipera has chosen to add grandchildren and great grandchildren to the Robert de Quincy article. I have stated on the article talk page this is unnecessary and off-topic to Robert de Quincy. They have also misrepresented what a source states, which I have also stated on the article talk page.
So Lionelt breaks a mention of Regnery because he apparently didn't read the whole section and didn't read the refs. But then when he somewhat elaborated a concern with the Reagan mention, I undid that part I had reverted. Sorta rv?


Even while filling out this report Pipera has reverted me twice, choosing to add back an unused 1790 source to the Sources section, and readding Robert's grandchildren and great grandchildren. This after being told by user:Ealdgyth(17 December 2024) that ]. Honestly, I don't think Pipera is here to build a community encyclopedia. --] (]) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: experienced user--didn't template" this is the first time anyone has jumped down my throat like this and it seemed a hostile act for what was IMHO *not* 3. In fact if you look at the times, it seems that he reported me before even trying to talk to me! (and I only noticed this page thanks to NekoBot)
{{hat|content user added to the article.--] (]) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:I have added the followi9ng:
:Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. .
:Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided.
:They had:
:Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester
:Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew
:Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue:
:Robert de St Andrew married Albreda
:James de St Andrew (1228)
:Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278)
:William de St Andrew
:Laurence de St Andrew
:Saer II de St Andrew
:John de St Andrew
:Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249)
:Orabilis and Robert divorced.
:Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. .
:it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here.
:They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.
{{hab}}
:I do not think I have broken any rules by adding this to his article supported by the external links provided. ] (]) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have posted to the talk page this is also incorrect. ] (]) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am not in an edit war, I posted new information which is educationally correct and was removed without any academic argument it was gone. no pre talk on the talk page concerning what was supplied by the person deleting the information.
:They firstly need to raise and entry and then talk and resolve, ] (]) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am expanding these articles not rolling them back. I have been editing here since at least the year 2001, I was editing entries for the 9/11 project obituaries for the people that passed in 9/11. ] (]) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:See
:User talk:Paramandyr: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Paramandyr&diff=prev&oldid=1264014635
:Latest revision as of 23:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo thank
:Paramandyr (talk | contribs)
:removed, stay off my talk page
:Tag: Undo ] (]) 00:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|48 hours}}. ] (]) 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale; content removed) ==
FASTILY: regarding "dispute resolution", I don't really know that there is a "dispute" that needs resolving. Obvious errors like the ref issue and the Regnery issue just need fixing. The Reagan issue was resolved between us (before I even knew that a complaint had been filed!) after he explained a concern. It seems like this was reported in haste, though in the future I will have to be more careful in 'counting' reverts (what to me was <3 was >3 to him). So, i guess in summary, if you wouldn't mind, please unlock the page. THX! -- ] (]) 05:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
:Your definition of a revert is defective.
:#You changed "discredit" to "debunk"
:#You changed "wrote in the New Yorker that Reisman holds the" to "recounts a contrary position held by"
:#You changed "Causation of homosexuality" to "As a promoter of homosexuality"
:#You hit undo: obvious. Even though you re-removed Reagan, you left Regnery. It is ''still a revert''.
:Please see WP:NOT3RR. '''None''' of your claims for exemption are valid. You violated 3RR: consider yourself lucky that you did not get blocked. You know, I have nothing against you. I warned you about 3RR in good faith. Your arrogant response on your talk page and subsequent revert in defiance of the warning was probably ill advised. ] (]) 07:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
:I do not support lifting page protection. By their comments above it appears the editor in question does not grasp 3RR thus may continue to violate 3RR. ] (]) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sigma Boy}} <br />
::I may not fully grok 3RR (and honestly, SYNTH gives me trouble), but (again) how is #1 (where you are pointing to two of *my* edits) a rv at all? In fact, looking at 435255378 you left debunk in... are you trying to say that it is a pejorative in the context of the lede? (that was not my intention) Or the fuller quote from the ref is? (But that's not a rv...) Does this have to do with the banned sock puppet account? *confusion* Why did you remove the first (wikilinked) instance of Regnery, but leave the second? For someone who just started editing () a somewhat mature article, you seem quite easily angered... perhaps the block will help you more than me. Anyway, the article was fortunately locked in a good state and one can always leave notes on the Talk page. If a week-long block is necessary, then so be it. -- ] (]) 09:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D}}
:::A revert is: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Changing just 1 word is a revert, and for the most part the ''reason is irrelevant''. Regarding Regnery, I didn't notice the 2nd appearance. But on first glance, it doesn't look sourced.] (]) 10:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
::::It is sourced- specifically to "Trento, Susan (1992)." which is currently ref #14 and there's a link to a copy of the relevant section on Reisman's own website (as she puts up lots of stuff there about herself). When reverting edits in the future I will attempt to do it all at once rather than in a piecemeal fashion (though I do prefer the latter for editing). This conversation would be more appropriate on the JR talk page though, so if you wish to continue, please do so there. -- ] (]) 17:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment:'''Looks like someone is busy waging their battles by filing ever more reports. Reviewers, please check closely. ] (]) 09:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
:Oh dear, may I ask what's going on? :( -- ] (]) 09:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Press Your Luck}}
#
#


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|E2e3v6}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Time reported:''' 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Winning the game */ ''Press'' was not on during November 1986.")</small>
If the IP reverts one more time, could someone please block them and revert their nonsensical edit? (Okay, maybe it's not "nonsensical", but it's incorrect.) ] (]) 02:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Home Player Spin */")</small>
*{{AN3|s}}; content removed until a consensus is found ] (]) 13:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 435683574 by ] (]) I have permission to put this stuff in by another wiki writer. check out discussion.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 435685614 by ] (]) Thank you for giving me another chance. Bye Bye.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "I should have said Thank you for giving me a "Second Chance". Get it?")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "This is the last one. please keep it in. The link is not dead.")</small>


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <br />
<!-- 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 -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
This user has been using a fansite to back up his claims. Fansites are considered an unreliable source, and this one is no exception. ] ] (] - ]) 22:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
#
*Technically speaking, ] has still not been broken... The editor has been warned once by an IP. So I am not going to block right now until another revert occurs from the user. In case the user doesn't revert again, engage in further discussions, take up ]. In case the user reverts once more in the next few hours, come back, the block will happen. ] ] 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
#
:And closing as {{AN3|d}} per above. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
#
#


== ] and ] reported by ] (OTRS) (Result: Event.Horizon.000 one month) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Cultural genocide}} <br />
'''Users being reported:''' {{userlinks|Event.Horizon.000}} and {{userlinks|Maphobbyist}}


Previous version reverted to:


* 1st revert: '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
* 10th revert:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and


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


<u>Comments:</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
On June 17, ] received a notice that editors are reverting each others' entries without trying to reach consensus. Both editors have ignored my warning and call for constructive collaboration posted on their and the article's talk page and continued to reverse each others' edits. For the record, I have no involvement in the article itself, but act only as an OTRS volunteer. ] (]) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: '''Malformed''' &ndash; The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <nowiki><!-- --></nowiki> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the ] for more information. ~ ] <small>(])</small> 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::{{done}} &mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Comment:''' The header and the diffs are now OK so I believe the report is well-formed. It's a case of long-term warring, since nobody has reverted four times in 24 hours. In my opinion both of the reported parties should be blocked 72 hours and notified under the ] case, since both seem to be interested in the Armenian genocide and they are breaking WP policy by edit warring. (A diff that reverts Armenian material is ). Socking appears possible. ] may also be editing as {{userlinks|178.78.187.155}} and as two other IPs, judging from Maphobbyist's contributions. Here are the userlinks for Maphobbyist: {{userlinks|Maphobbyist}}. Both parties do a lot of reverting. ] (]) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Per ] I'd suggest that Event.Horizon.000's block be for one month. He has already been confirmed by checkuser as a sockmaster and has just returned from a 72 hour block. ] (]) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Because I reverted the ] material the blocked ] ] / (not unblocked) ] added in the ] and ] articles, he got angered by this, and is now erasing any editions I make indeed in any article for no apparent reason, except due to a gruge it seems. This user also has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars. (]) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' ] is blocked one month for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. ] has been semiprotected. ] (]) 01:16, 24 June 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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: warned) ==
::@]
::"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:''' {{pagelinks|Decimal}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gisling}}


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


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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: # (second IP)
*
* 3rd revert:
* and ()
*
* 4th revert:
*
* 5th revert:
*
* 6th revert:


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


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User reverts against four other users (], ], ] and ) a version which is untenable. Discussions on talk fruitless. ] (]) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not participate in reverts. Warned first IP on their own talk page
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|warned}} Clearly edit warring, and clearly aware of 3RR having been blocked before, but I don't see a clear enough warning here. Continuing the edit war and or insults after the warning should be grounds for a prompt block.] 19:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 2 Weeks, reporter blocked 31 hours) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Samuel Koranteng-Pipim}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a stating {{tq|I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here.}}, and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. {{userlinks|CipherRephic}} was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop after being warned and has not broken 3RR. ] | ] 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Fountainviewkid}}

<!-- 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:


This user has been blocked for 3RR many times, and his edit warring on this page has caused the page to be protected two times prior. Simply protecting the page for the third time is unlikely to be a deterrent from further edit warring. ] (]) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:This is a "new" IP at an article which has been struggling with vandalism. I am trying to keep the IP from deleting whole section of the article. We need to use the Talk page rather than delete enmasse. Also the IP has violated 3RR as well, though it looks like it may be multiple IP's making the same edit (possible the same person)?--] (]) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I might also add that the IP keeps trying to add unsourced allegations that a church leader resigned his ministerial credentials in spite of no evidence saying otherwise. Especially since this is BLP there needs to be a credible source saying such a statement and there isn't. All the evidence suggests the opposite.--] (]) 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry. Fountainviewkid seems to not understand how ministerial credentials are issued in the Adventist church. They are given to ministers of a specific conference and continue only as long as an individual is employed in a pastoral capacity by that conference. It is ''not'' the same as ordination. By resigning his employment with the Michigan Conference, anyone with knowledge of the Adventist system knows Pipim resigned his credentials (not his ordination) as well. ] (]) 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::That's not entirely true. Pipim resigned his employment, but if he were to be employed by another conference he would have his credentials. The statement was very misleading and provides no evidence. Provide some reliable source about Pipim losing his credentials. And don't make it "synthesis" either.--] (]) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::Actually, yes it is. If he was employed by a different conference, that conference would issue him new credentials under their conference.
] (]) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Again provide some reliable sources showing Pipim had his credential resigned. When you provide the reliable source we can add it and the problem is solved.--] (]) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:The article has been struggling with loads of promotional language that multiple individuals have attempted to remove. Unfortunately, Fountainviewkid continues to insist on including said promotional language that multiple editors have noted and accuses those attempting to trim it of vandalism. ] (]) 20:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::Oh really new IP? You know how the article is struggling? And yet your first edits were within the last hour? Yes there are issues, but those are best handled via the Talk page. You seem to be more experienced and should know that, of course you may have other accounts. I am trying to keep the article from being vandalized by having whole sections removed. Sections which include some reliable sources I might add. It's vandalism to make those kind of edits without consensus, discussion, or a very very valid reason. Simply not liking certain terms does not justify wholesale removal of paragraphs.--] (]) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::That is not justification to edit war. ] (]) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::That is not justification to vandalize--] (]) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC).
'''Comment''' The IP seems to be a disruption-only account. ] (]) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

], if these disputes are best handled through the talk page, why have you not attempted to use the talk page yourself? Also, it is '''not''' vandalism to remove sections as you described above. A "very very valid reason" is a very subjective term, to the point that '''any''' edit that removes content could be considered vandalism by at least one editor. Simply not liking an edit does not make it vandalism. can in no way be considered vandalism, were instances where the IP removed unsourced content, which you restored, which also do not fall under the definition of vandalism. is not exempt from 3RR, as it does not meet the criteria of ''Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense.'' as can be seen with the , as an explanation ''was'' given. Misplaced Pages's rules on what falls under vandalism are very narrow for a reason. - ]] 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not saying one editor is "wrong" and one is "right", and I personally disagree with the IPs edits, but ] does not have a "I'm right" exception, especially with when there is no attempt to use the talk page. - ]]
::I have used the Talk page. Check out the sections that are being removed. They include some reliable sources. The IP is removing them it appears more out of POV reasons than anything else. It has nothing to do with mean not "liking" an edit. I still see it more as vandalism since again I argue while some of the edits have merit, others are far too broad to be considered "constructive". While that may be too harsh of a term I guess I could call the edits "extremely disruptive". Either way the IP is adding statements that are not reliably sourced, removing reliable sources, and deleting whole sections that serve a valid purpose in the article. I might also add that the IP itself has violated 3RR, and suspiciously looks similar to another IP that was editing right before. I'm not saying there should be an "I'm right" exception, and you're right that I probably should have been over here reporting the IP for disruptive editing. If you look at the content under dispute, the IP however is clearly in the wrong in how it is editing. Yes maybe I should have reverted so much, but I just wanted to protect the page from what I see as "vandalism" from a disruption only account. Look at the IP's history.--] (]) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The whole resignation situation, Facebook source, and other edits the IP is trying to put in are discussed at length on the Talk page.--] (]) 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I've requested the page's full protection at ]. Hopefully in lieu of issuing blocks on both sides, so that the edit warring will cease, and talk page discussions will result (something that may not happen if blocks are issued). - ]] 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks. I've started a section on the Talk page called "IP's editing". Yes that may not be the best title, but I have my view of the situation. Hopefully others will comment. Page protection should help.--] (]) 20:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::'''Note''' Page has been full protected. - ]] 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::This is the third time the page has been protected due to Fountainviewkid's blind reverting. It needs to stop so everyone can collaborate on improving the article. ] (]) 20:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::And this is your first edit to wikipedia apparently. Please explain. Thanks, ] (]) 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:*{{AN3|b| 2 Weeks by ]}} + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 21:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
*Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that '''everyone''' of these IPs who appear at Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, edit war, and then disappear, seem to have an editing pattern, temperament, and familiarity with policies uncannily reminiscent of a certain edit warrior recently gone inactive? &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
**I think the case hasn't been presented in the right forum, yet. Since CheckUser is fairly useless, we need to request a "behavioral analysis" of all these experienced SPA IPs and our favorite "edit warrior recently gone inactive". The only person in the world who cares about this stuff as much as Fountainviewkid is BelloWello. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Campaign for "santorum" neologism}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' Nobody

'''Santorum article undergoing massive rewrite, requesting more lax edit rules temporarily'''

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

Editor and administrator ] earlier today dropped a congenial reminder on my page about the ] article and how I had come up against the strictly interpreted 3RR rule. My request here is really just a pre-emptive request that admins look carefully at the '''''tone of editing''''' for the time being, more than the strict number of edits with regard to this specific article.

As reported in the ], this article has gotten a massive amount of attention lately, and overall I would say that most of us are working to improve this article.

]

Simply going by a strict 3RR would most likely interfere with natural give and take and flow. Also most editors are frequently checking in at the Talk page and discussing edits in line with a vibrant ] cycle. So all in all, I think we have a good flow going and I would hate to see it ruined by a zealous admin enforcing process for sake of process. To be clear, I'm not saying that edit warring be ignored, or that 3RR be ignored, just an understanding that LOTS of edits are occuring and people are moving forward and improving the article, and judicious enforcement will most likely work best for now. -- ] (]) 06:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
:As nobody is being reported here, I think this might be more appropriate on the ]. - ]] 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


*{{AN3|d}} Not a report. This kind of post belongs at ]/]. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|comment}} Thanks. Moved to Administrator's Noticeboard. ] (]) 06:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Speculation about Mona Lisa}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kvvvvxvvvvv}}

<!-- 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:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
* 10th 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 ~~~~ -->
This is an ongoing dispute regarding the so-called "Roni Kempler theory" introduced to the page by user ] (Kempler spelled backwards) earlier in the year (see talk on article page). It now appears the above user (whose page has been marked ] by another editor) is attempting to insert the same theory despite well-worn explanations by several editors, including myself, on the WP policy against ]. It seems we have all attempted various means to diplomatically resolve the dispute, but the user, under his various names (] is likely another via ), simply will not listen.--] (]) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nve}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::So the editor, under his/her multiple usernames, may add their OR ad infinum until their fingers curl up with paralysis with no recrimination?--] (]) 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:::If that is the case, then this is the wrong forum to request administrative intervention. Please do so at ] instead. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Will do, thanks.--] (]) 01:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Iyengar}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|S a narasimhan}}

<!-- 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:
* 5th 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 ~~~~ -->
The user had been engaged in edit wars and high levels of vandalism, by reverting other's contributions that are wells sourced. "user:s a narasimhan" removed highly authentic sources(Government publications, online books by famous University Publications, Online books of renowned neutral party authors, etc). Except his last edit , all other previous vandalising edits were unexplained. I havent mentioned his other vandalising edits. Please check his contributions. The user had always disapproved of the authenticity of "source materials", and had urged me to edit based on "What one holds to be true" , and had denied wiki' policy of "Verifiability, not truth". Accepting the user:s a narasimhan's request for discussion, i had discussed the issue in the talk page. But the user gave no repsonse, and continued with his vandalising edits. In his last vandalising edit here:, the user had contributed an untrue discriminatory information without any source. In one sentence he had mentioned "'''though they consider Ahobila mutt as inferior because Ahobila mutt incorporates lots of Tamil worship in its rituals.'''" Saying that "'''one is superior/inferior to the other, and saying a language is inferior'''" is highly prohibited here, but the user had used such terms in his contributions. None of his contributions were sourced. However the info' he had provided is untrue because the geneteic tests were done on "Ahobila mutt" group, as the test was taken from "Kurnool district(incorporating ahobilam), and the individuals' genes were similar to punjabi aryans. He should be blocked. But he's getting away with vandalism, as he calls for discussion, in his revert comments, but fails to discuss anything in the talk. Although he calls for consensus, he continues to make vandalising edits, even before a discussion, and has not provided a valid discussion in the talk page. Check the article's talk. "User:s a narasimhan" has also repeatedly disapproved of wiki' policy ], inspite of the fact that i've adequately explained wiki's policies to him in the talk page. Check this message here, which he{sa narasimhan) posted on my talk page: . He is consistently denying the authenticity of "Neutral party sources(online articles), and is repeatedly urging me to edit based on "observance & empathy". How could this be possible in wikipedia??. The user has clearly disobeyed and violated every basic policy of wikipedia editing, and should be blocked. Sometimes, he just does not choose the undo option, but changes the previous edit, by editing it manually. Please help. The user is also including polemics in main article, rather than in the talk page. ] (]) 09:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:Stop your forum shopping (your SPI case came back as unconnected) and follow the procedures of dispute resolution as I've mentioned to you on my talk page and on the article talk page. The page is protected, discuss on the talk page, ] or follow other processes at ]. This has gone on for long enough. &mdash;]''']''' 09:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But the user i have reported had been removing source materials constantly, calling them "not reliable" , and had repeatedly committed vandalism , and for once, he had contributed a highly discrminitory information , as mentioned above. I've discussed it already. Most of his reverts were unexplained. But the user is repeatedly asking me to deny the authenticity of "source contents", and is asking me to edit based on empathy, i guess. How can a contribution like that be allowed here?? Expecting an appropriate result. Also, the spi case where the registered users were compared, was unconnected. But i'm sure the user had used anotgher(Ip), to win the edit war. But ips are not linked to names. Will certainly read the instructions from your talk page. Thank You. ] (]) 10:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

:{{an3|p}} prior to report. &mdash;]''']''' 10:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Four-dimensionalism}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Stho002}}

<!-- 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: {{diff2|435776616|08:00, 23 June}}

<!-- 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: {{diff|Four-dimensionalism|436071109|436054267|01:12}} ({{diff|Four-dimensionalism|436071109|435776616|rv}})
* 2nd revert:{{diff|Four-dimensionalism|436083902|436082721|03:28}} ({{diff|Four-dimensionalism|436083902|435776616|rv}})
* 3rd revert: {{diff|Four-dimensionalism|436096679|436093806|05:56}} ({{diff|Four-dimensionalism|436096679|435776616|rv}})
* 4th revert: {{diff|Four-dimensionalism|436109993|436108292|08:33}} ({{diff|Four-dimensionalism|436109993|435776616|rv}})


<!-- 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: {{diff2|435375608|3RR warning on 00:47, June 21}}

<!-- 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: {{diff|Talk:Four-dimensionalism|436112712|436110583|Article talk page}} (see ]).

<u>Comments:</u>Stho002 has been editing tendentiously as the sole opponent of the consensus. He was given {{diff2|435375608|3RR warning on 00:47, June 21}} and reverted 5 more times directly thereafter. Please note, on his user talk, {{diff|User talk:Stho002|435593873|435589444|he admits}} that he reverts using his IP address, ], so his edit history doesn't look bad. Please let me know if I copied any diffs wrong, {{ph|Four-dimensionalism|(page hist)}}. Thanks.—] 09:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)<br />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
* {{AN3|b|24 hours}} - ] <small>(])</small> 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

== ] <br> ] reported by ] (Result: protected) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|AC/DC}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hoponpop69}}, {{userlinks|Bretonbanquet}}

<!-- 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. -->

<!-- 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: and


] <small>]</small> 14:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

* {{AN3|p}} Nobody has edited the article since the 3RR warnings above and nobody has broken the letter of 3RR, but all parties here are experienced enough that I expect that they are well aware of the ]. Please take a moment to re-read the policy regardless, and avoid future edit wars over minor issues of presentation on an FA. If matters are not resolved before protection expires in one week or if ] is reached before then, please make a request at ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 15:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Neither of us have breached 3RR, and I don't really see the helpfulness in someone warning me about 3RR on an issue where I have already notified the other user of 3RR and asked him to discuss the matter. Furthermore, there have been no edits to this article between Mlpearc issuing both of us with warnings, and this report being filed. I have reverted this guy 4 times in 4 days, and got warned about 3RR. Do me a favour.

Hoponpop69 made a change to the article which I disagreed with - on a specific point that had been stable for over 8 years - and I reverted him. He continued to revert back, at which point I left the article at his preferred version and started a discussion on his talk page and the article talk page, urging him to discuss the matter. A discussion took place involving other users, during which Hoponpop69 called me and other editors "foolish" , "dense" and "lacking in intellect" . We ignored that, and the matter now seems to have been resolved, with another editor restoring the original version. Hoponpop69 meanwhile made another change to a different part of the same article, and I reverted him again. Some reverting went on between us and another editor as well, while I asked Hoponpop to discuss it. He seems to think that a change can be made to an article and then everyone else has to prove him wrong because as far as he's concerned, his edit was just common sense. It doesn't work like that. I continued to discuss on his talk page and he ignored it, reverting again, threatening to report me if I reverted him So it's "I'm not discussing this - don't revert me or I'll report you". He also accused me of reverting every edit he makes, which is patently not true and an assumption of bad faith. That is unacceptable. Why do other editors have to start discussions every time Hoponpop69 wants to make a change that is contested? The onus is on him to justify his change, not on the rest of us to justify the status quo. Furthermore, why should I be obliged to leave the article at his preferred version (again) and start another discussion when he has openly admitted that he is refusing to discuss the problem? I would have reported him myself, but since he threatened me with further action, I thought I'd trigger that further action in order to bring about a resolution. Thus my final revert, and my first in 2 days. Before that could happen, Mlpearc got involved with templating experienced editors without bothering to actually check through the discussion and the whole history of the problem. ] (]) 15:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::Why don't you just drop it and move on ? I'm <nowiki>{{done}}</nowiki> Good luck. ] <small>]</small> 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:::So the guy who shouts the loudest, throws some insults around and bends the rules always wins? It's about a principle. Cheers, ] (]) 15:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Harvey Milk}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jimjilin}}

<!-- 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 ~~~~ -->

* Jimjilin is attempting, I believe, to insert an irrelevant fact that Milk's partner at this point of his life was 16 years old and therefore slanting information to make it seem as if Milk was a pedophile. The source used for this does state that McKinley was 16 at the time he met Milk, but that McKinley had left his home in Kentucky or Tennessee, where his family was very religious, and was seeking out gay relationships in New York. Within the pages Jimjiln has cited for McKinley's age is a thorough explanation that McKinley left his home because he was gay and that he had come to New York "to suck cocks". Seriously, that's the opening line of the chapter. Milk met McKinley when McKinley was already involved with Milk's friend and theater producer ].
* Harvey Milk is a Featured Article. No other partners Milk had have their ages included in the article because it's irrelevant. No reliable biography on Milk has ever suggested he was a pedophile, including the one cited by Jimjilin. I urged Jimjilin to start a talk page thread to discuss this if he thinks the issue has merit, and he did, but then inserted the information into the article again. Then accused me of censoring the truth. This smacks of POV and UNDUE. --] (]) 16:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

* {{AN3|b|24 hours}} Although technically that would be ], not ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 18:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:46, 24 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



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

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

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

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

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

    Page: Robert de Quincy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pipera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,

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

    Comments:

    Pipera has chosen to add grandchildren and great grandchildren to the Robert de Quincy article. I have stated on the article talk page this is unnecessary and off-topic to Robert de Quincy. They have also misrepresented what a source states, which I have also stated on the article talk page.

    Even while filling out this report Pipera has reverted me twice, choosing to add back an unused 1790 source to the Sources section, and readding Robert's grandchildren and great grandchildren. This after being told by user:Ealdgyth(17 December 2024) that WP:AGEMATTERS. Honestly, I don't think Pipera is here to build a community encyclopedia. --Paramandyr (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    content user added to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I have added the followi9ng:
    Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. .
    Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided.
    They had:
    Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester
    Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew
    Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue:
    Robert de St Andrew married Albreda
    James de St Andrew (1228)
    Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278)
    William de St Andrew
    Laurence de St Andrew
    Saer II de St Andrew
    John de St Andrew
    Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249)
    Orabilis and Robert divorced.
    Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. .
    it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here.
    They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.
    I do not think I have broken any rules by adding this to his article supported by the external links provided. Pipera (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have posted to the talk page this is also incorrect. Pipera (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am not in an edit war, I posted new information which is educationally correct and was removed without any academic argument it was gone. no pre talk on the talk page concerning what was supplied by the person deleting the information.
    They firstly need to raise and entry and then talk and resolve, Pipera (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I am expanding these articles not rolling them back. I have been editing here since at least the year 2001, I was editing entries for the 9/11 project obituaries for the people that passed in 9/11. Pipera (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    See
    User talk:Paramandyr: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Paramandyr&diff=prev&oldid=1264014635
    Latest revision as of 23:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo thank
    Paramandyr (talk | contribs)
    removed, stay off my talk page
    Tag: Undo Pipera (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Page: Sigma Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    If the IP reverts one more time, could someone please block them and revert their nonsensical edit? (Okay, maybe it's not "nonsensical", but it's incorrect.) Moscow Connection (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    4. (second IP)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

    Categories: