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 01:05, 20 November 2011 editLionelt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,463 edits →User:Binksternet reported by User:Lionelt (Result: )← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:44, 27 December 2024 edit undoFylindfotberserk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers165,712 edits More diffs and explanation 
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 = 172 |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>
}}
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
</noinclude>
{{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: Already protected) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.98.24.125}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Time reported:''' 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
#
#
#
#


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


# <small>(edit summary: "rvv- better before. If you have a disagreement here, please discuss it first.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "rv- the previous revision looks better. You were told this before, and you ignored it. Wiktionary explains the word, TOC on the right makes sense to make the page shorter, etc. Hope this helps.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "rv- I just *gave* you an explanation that you've requested on the talk page in my previous edit summary. I assume you can read, which means your intent here is disruption, not help the article.")</small>


* Diff of warning:


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
—] (]) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
<br><u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Please advise if I should rqst semi-protection for the page. Thanks, ] (]) 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
To the administrators- I was only trying to keep the article's quality. I was also hoping to reach understanding through my edit summaries, obviously I have failed. If I am being in the wrong here, please let me know and I will stop editing it. Thanks. ] (]) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:You are indeed in the wrong, for failure to communicate after three separate requests. Please use the talk page: ]. I also recommend undoing your most recent revert as a show of good faith while you discuss the issue. ] (]) 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::Magog the Ogre? Is that from ]? ] (]) 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::In an attempt to get some input, and settle this disagreement, I have added comments to the article's talk page today, in addition to comments I left there yesterday. I will be glad to wait a few days, however, based on the article's history of a few revert wars in the article's past, I am not too optimistic that the same battles will not return at the next copy-edit. Any suggestions on how to handle this situation would be appreciated. Thanks, --] (]) 19:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
::::If the IP doesn't come and discuss the issue within a half day or so, I'd just revert it. I'm normally ''never'' for revert warring, but you've done your part, and now s/he must do his. Also, IP: see ] and ] (both are in all Abrahamic religions). Guar is just a stupid name I saw the day I created my SN. ] (]) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Well taken, thank you. --] (]) 20:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't know what it is about this article, but my copy-edits were reverted again yesterday by an IP. --] (]) 18:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Article is already protected per another 3RR report further down on this page. ] (]) 16:18, 19 November 2011


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
*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|Amy Daly}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TSWikis1}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <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|Napoleonjosephine2020}}


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: #
* 3rd 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> ], an SPA who only edits with regard to the subject of the article involved in this dispute, is repeatedly adding content to the article claiming that a once (somewhat) prominent transgender activist, who was interviewed on the ] TV show, has since become a performer in pornographic videos. No references or sources of any type have been provided for the identification of the interviewee as the porn performer, just links documenting that the interview was broadcast. The performer uses a different name from the interviewee. After I posted a warning on TSwikis1's talk page, a modified text of the unsupported claim was added back to the article by an IP with no edit history, who I infer is TSwikis1; no other editor has made any substantive contribution to the article. Neither TSwikis1 nor the IP account have engaged in talk page discussion. For the record, I believe my removals of the disputed content fall within the BLP exception to 3RR, since there is no reliable sourcing for the identification of the interviewee as the porn performer. ] (]) 02:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)<br />
*:I think your characterization of the dispute may be a bit inaccurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not contesting that she (he?) is a pornographic actress; you're only contesting that she was on ET. ] (]) 03:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
**:What I'm contesting is that the person who appeared on ET became a porn performer. That's the unsourced claim. "Jacki" appeared on ET, and is a real, identifiable person. "Amy" is a porn performer for whom we have no reliable biographical information. Nothing supports the claim that Jacki changed their name to Amy and went into porn. ] (]) 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
* User Hullabaloo Wolfawitz has a frivolous delete dispute and is trying to win his argument, which is why s/he keeps hounding my changes and it is coming down to harassment. Porn Actors and Non porn actors all use stage names in their performances. I have been in contact with the performer and she has granted me permission to use her real name on the article. Otherwise, it would not of been posted at all. The person that the article is about is identified by non stage name and a photo on the source. In the actor's biography on her website and youtube secondary source, she notes being Jackie in the video and it is plain to see because the video and the source photo included clearly identify Jackie as Amy Daly. She also has photos of her on the entertainment tonight set on her website. This article has been thoroughly researched as I am a huge follower of the transsexual pornography industry. This user continues to harass this article, removing whole chunks of the persons life prior to the porn industry, which were all sourced as well, but s/he removed it all and did not tell you about that part. In his/her delete request, there are users asking her/him to stop harassing newer members, which is evidence that this is the sort of thing that he likes to do. I would like to request that wolfawitz is blocked from further edits to this article as s/he is vandalizing to get the article deleted. I am going to revert his vandalism and request action be taken to his account due to the repeated reverts of valid content and sources. I would like to continue to update these transgender performers for better accuracy, as I am a fan of both porn and wikipedia, but this user will make it impossible for me to do if I am being continually harassed. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} Feel free to continue to revert under BLP for the time being, until you can come to consensus (if the other editor is willing to engage in discussion rather than blindly reverting). ] (]) 18:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
*:Thank you. I'm going to ask for further input at ], although it may take me a little while before I can write it up. ] (]) 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2011}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|118.90.92.253}}


Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 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. -->


: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)
Previous version 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) ==
<!-- 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:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
<!-- 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 -->
'''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:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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: #
#
#
# (second IP)


<u>Comments:</u>The editor is fully aware of the 3RR rule, as shows. '''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF4500">]</font>''' 03:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} - if the user socks under a different IP, by all means request semi-protection. ] (]) 18:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:*Thanks for actioning this. I don't know whether this is relevant here, but for what it's worth, another editor has opened a ] that involves this IP. '''<font color="#000000">]</font><font color="#FF4500">]</font>''' 17:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Block, semi, Antique Rose warned) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tamara Toumanova}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Antique Rose}}
<!-- 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:'''


'''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
<!-- 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:


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
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)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Marc Benioff}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> User:Antique Rose participated in an editwarring without any serious explanations at talk, with ironic and uncivil ( tone. The opposing IP-user was recently blocked, while Rose, who was an aggressive part of editwarring, feels free to continue his aggressive behaviour. ] (]) 15:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|c}} - I've notified {{adminlinks|Edgar181}} and asked him to reconsider. I agree it was a poor idea to only block the IP. ] (]) 18:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
*I've replied to Magog on my talk page (]) giving my reasoning for my admin actions. Unfortunately, I've got only a few minutes before I'll be away from the computer at least until tomorrow. So I'm going to apologize and let another admin proceed as he or she sees fit. -- ] (]) 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|99.98.190.59}}
*OK. I may have been out of order . Is it considered edit warring, when one reverts apparent vandalism, e.g. removal of cited references? Anyway, it is quite obvious that user 85.141.14.195, now blocked, has been using several IP accounts, e.g. 176.14.208.219 and 176.14.208.162, making exactly or almost exactly the same edits. The user reporting me, Gazifikator, supports the Armenian cause in this particular case, citing the same sources as 85.141.14.195. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I must question Gazifikator's neutrality on this topic. Best regards, <font color="#0000FF">Antique</font> <font color="#FF007F">Rose</font> &mdash; <font color="red">]</font> 20:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
::Maybe I'm not neutral despite I tried and explained my view at talk, but I never participated at this editwarring like Rose done. ] (]) 03:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 03:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
:::It wasn't edit-warring, it was fighting vandalism. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' ] has semiprotected the article and blocked {{user|85.141.14.195}}. He has ] that another admin take over closing this case since he is temporarily away. Using a fluctuating IP to conduct a campaign of reverts certainly violates ], so the sanctions on the IP appear correct. Since this is a dispute related to nationality (Georgian vs. Armenian descent) Magog's ARBAA notices for both the IP and Antique Rose appear logical. ] did break 3RR while reverting the sock-IP, but it is a stretch to want to apply a block to her at this time. The IP's actions (which include removing references supporting the other side) wander into vandal territory. This dispute has been running a long time. At first glance the arguments for an Armenian connection seem remote (e.g. descent from a family who were said to have been Armenian in the 12th century) and editors have put a lot of Russian-language information on the talk page with no translation. Nonetheless the subject's ethnicity is not for admins to decide. I recommend that the RfC at ] be finished and be closed by an admin if necessary. If anyone believes that Antique Rose has been socking they should open an SPI. Antique Rose is warned against any further edit warring. ] (]) 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


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


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|79.170.50.135}}
# {{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:'''
'''Time reported:''' 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265024924|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 461038182 by ] (]) wrong caption")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 461146630 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 461174149 by ] (]) revert vandalism")</small>


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dune: Part Two}}
* Diff of warning:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
—] (]) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff2|1265161751|12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
:Second time this week that I keep getting reverted by an IP on the same article. --] (]) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265079289|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
:: You do realize that you're just as at fault with edit-warring here, right? (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265038799|19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
:::No, I disagree. See my 3RR report at the top of this page, showing that each time, I have requested responses from the IPs, I have described my copy-edits in detail in both my edit summaries and the article's talk page. Also, if you read the ], there have been revert wars before by several IPs, with the IPs personally attacking the registered editors. Also, please note that if one does not revert the IPs edit, then what you are suggesting is a ]. The 1st 3RR that I reported this week, I waited several days, and the first IP disappeared, and note, nothing was done essentially. The behavior of these IPs is very disruptive, and I believe, not in good faith, since both IPs have refused to discuss why they keep reverting the article. --] (]) 22:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1264974672|12:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
:::: ... and you know that what you said above is not an excuse for ], right? It's ], not ]. ] is there for a reason (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 00:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
::::: Even if one believes that it is not an excuse for edit warring, I'm not sure I understand what you mean that BRD would apply to this case, as the IPs obviously did not wish to discuss. (see IPs talk pages, there are no responses from them.) And how would DR help in this case, when there is no active discussion from the other editors? I am not optimistic that when the article is un-protected next week, that this same cycle would not start again, and I would appreciate some input on what to do. --] (]) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::: ] is a first place - prevents you from breaking 3RR yourself. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 17:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p|1 week}} by BWilkins. <s>Also, I've restored the pre-dispute version.</s> ] (]) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==
# {{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:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Occupy Las Vegas}} <br />
# {{diff2|1265080353|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Dr. JTT}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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 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)
Previous version reverted to:
:{{u|ChasePlowman2014}} is completely unresponsive. I hope they try editing during the 2 weeks of their block and notice that they have a talk page. ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
**Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the ] explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
**:{{u|Jasca Ducato}}, this isn't about the time taken to respond to the noticeboard report. {{u|ChasePlowman2014}} isn't using edit summaries nor talk pages and ignores warnings on their talk page about their behavior. ] (]) 04:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
<!-- 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:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
<!-- 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 -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Callmehelper}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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> Multiple removals of referenced material, no discussion or edit summaries. Other users have requested discussion on talk page<br />


<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] (]) 00:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
:5th revert
:6th revert
:7th revert
:8th revert
:9th revert
:Anyone home? ] (]) 01:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
::{{an3|b|24 hours}}, not by me. '']'' <sup>]</sup> 02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team }}


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|58.109.81.229}}


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Time reported:''' 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


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


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
# () <small>(edit summary: "My source is ive been watching football for 51 years you seem to have incorrect in formation yesterday argentina defeated bosnia on may 14 now it's may 15 if you refuse to change the 6-2 please enjoy having false information")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=60094/profile/index.html please visit this uefa official website specifically list's portugal 6-2 as bosnia's biggest defeat")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=60094/profile/index.html OFFICIAL UEFA WEBSITE SPECIFICALLY STATES BOSNIA'S BIGGEST DEFEAT AS 6-2 DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS IS SOLID PROOF THE FACTS ARE RIGHT HERE PLEASE GET YOU FACT'S STRAIGHT")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "thank you for helping post falsified information on wikipedia and ingnoring truthful facts even when they are in your face (http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=60094/profile/index.html because no one dare be right expect for you")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "the link on the right hand side specifically states 6-2 as bosnia's biggest ever defeat in all competitions you have to be blind to not see and something you may not no the argentina bosnia match was a friendly Uefa organizes all friendlys between")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "International friendlys between nations the link list all competitions and you may not know that fifa does not sanction friendlys Uefa does especially being that bosnia and european nation was involved uefa definatly sanctioned this event")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "And the estonia win was retracted because of those cheating alligations estonia is also a european nation it's also falls under Uefa")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "Sorry i miswrote what i meant to say is aa match with a uefa nation and any nation from any arena concaf oceania etc is always organized buy uefa and not fifa just like the argentina game had it been bosnia biggest defeat uefa would of listed it as")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "The defination of defeat according to fifa is how many is how many goals you conceded the number of goals you scored is irrelevant and goal diffrence 6-2 4 goal to 5-0diffrence makes no sense at all bosnia conceded more then 5 goals therefor 6-2")</small>


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Angelo Rules}} <br />
* Diff of warning:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnny test person}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
—] (]) 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}} I don't see a violation here (consecutive edits to an article do not count separately). And the only edit since the warning was a formatting change . ] (]) 16:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: already semiprotected) ==
# ]
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Erich von Manstein}} <br />
# ]
'''Users being reported:''' {{userlinks|Knispel}}
# ]
* {{userlinks|109.129.105.233}} (probably Knispel logged out)
# ]
* {{userlinks|109.129.99.187}} (probably Knispel logged out)
* {{userlinks|109.129.184.245}} (probably Knispel logged out)
* {{userlinks|109.129.206.192}} (probably Knispel logged out)
Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert: 17:51, November 15, 2011
* 2nd revert: 18:10, November 15, 2011
* 3rd revert: 12:54, November 16, 2011
* 4th revert: 13:14, November 18, 2011
* 5th revert: 18:31, November 18, 2011
* 6th revert: 06:57, November 19, 2011
* 7th revert: 07:14, November 19, 2011


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*I've warned the user. Let's see how the editor reacts. I'm not closing this report yet.] ] 09:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
**Knispel said on the article talk page that he , referring to what I see as well-cited text added by ]. It looks like Knispel made a statement of intent to edit war. ] (]) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC) :{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Project Accessory}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Grail Movement}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Worstcook}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Folawiki}}
<!-- 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: '''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. -->
# {{diff2|1265465790|02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 1st revert: -20:27, 18 November 2011
# {{diff2|1265465049|02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 2nd revert: - 20:42, 18 November 2011
# {{diff2|1265464033|02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 3rd revert: - 15:28, 19 November 2011
# {{diff2|1265459461|01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 4th revert: - 19 November 2011


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* In addition, an apparent IP sockpuppet: 06:23, 19 November 2011
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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 -->
# {{diff2|1265464764|02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "{{re|Folawiki}} The whitewashing has to stop. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"


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


Cult whitewashing. ] (]) 02:24, 27 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 -->
*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ], ].


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
: '''Note''': The discussion above is my attempt to build the narrative portion of the article, and is not related to the 3RR case at all; the discussion took place several days before the dispute above. I stepped away from the article for a few days to take a breather, and to give Worstcook and her friends the opportunity to (hopefully) write the narrative I recommended. Instead, I came back to find a series of inflammatory and selective reverts of content that is easily sourced to the episode, as is done with numerous elimination-style reality show articles all over Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Trisha Krishnan}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
The editor has a history of edit-warring, and rather than engage in substantive discussion on the article talk page, he gives minimal and defensive responses. Multiple editors have reverted him and have tried discussion. His latest volley of reverts have occurred with no discussion by him, despite requests in edit summaries for him to discuss his edits.--] (]) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TheHappiestEditor}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
* While I have had my issues with Worstcook, who I believe treats Misplaced Pages as a fan page, and a pace to keep elimination tables, rather than being a serious editor, I have real issues with the selective nature of this 3RR claim. Yes, it's clear Worstcook violated 3RR on this article; with that I have no dispute. However, there are two problems that are being overlooked, I believe. Worstcook has consistently IP edited with one IP: 205.209.83.211, geolocated in Rockland, ME. Here, she is being accused of editing with another one, 155.47.192.82, which geolocates to Wheaton College in Massachusetts. While I suppose it's possible it's the same person, I have my doubts, and the evidence backs me up. Worstcook has been completely consistent about the use of an IP in the past, the original IP has been silent since the sockpuppet case against Worstcook, and most importantly, the new IP editor's edit history and Worstcook's are extensive, show concurrent editing and are far more different than alike, and that's apparently solely on cursory examination. Moreover, Worstcook demonstrates very poor command of basic English spelling and grammar, inconsistent with someone who would be attending a small selective religious college like Wheaton. I don't think there's any substantiation to believe Worstcook is socking using IP 155.47.192.82. Having been once been falsely accused of IP editing from Oklahoma while I was on the west coast by an admin who took no time to conduct even the most rudimentary investigation, I'm sensitive to the ease with which such accusations may be made and accepted.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* Even more troubling is the selective nature of this accusation. Again, I recognize Worstcook's offense, but it takes two to edit war, and Worstcook didn't start this one. ] made five reverts between 04:11 and 23:45 on November 18. His was the original revert, and he exchanged most of the reverts cited above with Worstcook, before Tenebrae stepped in. Yet, I see no 3RR complaint against him, and no good reason why he was not reported for 3RR when Worstcook was. There isn't even a 3RR warning on his talk page. It defies understanding why only Worstcook was cited, not both editors. I believe this case demands some careful scrutiny. ] (]) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::Worstcook did technically violate ] and that's the main reason for this noticeboard to exist. I've semiprotected the article to shut down any possible socking, and invited Worstcook to respond here. Worstcook does seem to be editing like a single-minded fan, and it is understandable that this might set off the instincts of regular editors to feel as though abuse was occurring. You are correct that Sparthorse has made four reverts also, and his actions should be considered by the closer. I will notify Sparthorse that his edits are being discussed. ] (]) 18:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::Thanks to ] for notifying me about the discussion. Yes, I did violate ] (making four reverts on the article), so I will accept any sanctions arising from this. 3RR is an important policy and I violated it. I will note that my intention was to remove unsourced material from the article, but accept without qualification that I should not have continued to revert the article to that state. ] (]) 18:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
# {{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)
::: No question that Worstcook violated 3RR, which I acknowledge twice above. But in all fairness, so did Sparthorse, who I applaud for recognizing as much and taking his/her lumps, should there be any. My big concern was that this report was one-sided with no apparent reason why, and as such, unfair, which I felt should be pointed out. I do believe Worstcook is a long-term problem editor who loves, loves, loves those elimination tables, but with rare exceptions, doesn't give a hoot about the rules, procedures or the best interests of the articles in which the tables appear, and demonstrates a complete lack of willingness to abide by policy, improve her editing or do anything but keep up those tables. But in this case, as goes Worstcook, so goes Sparthorse, and the end result should reflect that. ] (]) 19:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
#
#
#


#
::::I, too, admire ]'s forthrightness, and perhaps I should have included both. However, it had seemed to me he was trying to revert a habitual edit-warrior who was not responding to requests for substantive discussion and for proper documentation, and stubbornly insisting on reinserting an uncited table.


# - putting fake sources/infomation
::::Of course elimination tables are an important, perhaps even critically necessary, part of competition reality-show articles. The issue isn't tables per se &mdash; it's having tables that are supported by the primary-source plot descriptions. That is what ] refused to provide, and all that Sparthouse was asking for. And reverts for blatant vandalism or, in the case, blatant policy violation can be exceptions to 3RR.
# - putting fake sources/infomation
# - putting fake sources/infomation


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::::I respect ], a responsible and meticulous editor, and clearly one with great empathy and caring for other editors. I do understand why he might feel this, but I don't believe it's unfair to look at the larger nature and the habitual behavior of problematic editors. Worstcook could have brought a 3RR case against Sparthorse herself; no one was preventing her from doing so. --] (]) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
#


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::::: Tenabrae, thank you for the clarification. Absent what you've just told me, this appeared to be quite arbitrary. With an explanation, your choice makes far more sense. However, while I agree that vandalism allows us to revert without being accountable for 3RR, I don't believe blatant policy violations do as well; Misplaced Pages has other remedies in those instances. Rather, while I do agree, and have said in very emphatic terms, that the article needs a fully developed narrative describing the show and the judging procedures, I don't think using the assertion that the content is unsourced is the way to get that accomplished, particularly given, as I said on the talk page, that there is too well established a precedent for sourcing with the episodes to not have it apply in this case. All that did was inflame the situation, and create an edit war that didn't need to have happened. Instead, we need to think in terms of all or nothing: either the article is brought up to standard, or it's recommended for deletion. Reverting it to a stub will accomplish nothing, just galvanize Worstcook and other IP editors who see the inconsistency from one article to another. (Oh, and for the sake of the permanent record, I'm a she-type, not a he-type.) ] (]) 22:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Maafa 21}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Binksternet}}


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)
<!-- 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. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
<!-- 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: N/A -- Abortion 1RR
* 4th revert: N/A -- Abortion 1RR


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|103.84.130.238}}
<!-- 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 -->


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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|oldid=1262480024|diff=1265542339|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
## {{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:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
#
#


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
High edit account user very active in Abortion area. Knows the drill. Long block log. Clear edit warring in violation of Abortion 1RR. Their previous block was for '''''3 months''''', reduced to 1 month.&ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::He is edit warring against two other editors (myself included).&ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


:I'm the one who put the 1RR notice on the article's talk page, so of course I am aware of restrictions. The above diffs do not show a violation of 1RR as they are 24:01 apart rather than within 24 hours. I have been involved in improving the article with more scholarly opinions and I have been actively working toward consensus on the talk page. Right before making the second edit shown above, I submitted on the talk page. I am not revert warring, I am working toward improving the article and gaining consensus. ] (]) 23:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::1 minute past the cutoff is ]. A person whose last block was for 3 months in duration and who just came off a 6 month 1RR restriction should ''do more talking'' and less edit warring. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::If you were truly "working toward consensus" you would've waited for someone, anyone to respond to your "detailed argument" before imposing your will and POV on the article. This "detailed argument" is nothing more than a cover to hide behind to avoid a block for 1RR. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
::One post on the talk page without any input from anyone else, and then proceeding to revert against 2 other editors is not consensus. It is the out of control behavior of a POV edit warrior.&ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:::With all the past friction between you and me, Lionelt, you are perhaps not the most neutral observer here. You would celebrate me being blocked, I'm sure. The article ] is a tiny blip of a thing, orphaned and terribly faulty. I'm helping improve it, as you can see. Maybe you can help, too. ] (]) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not seeing a big problem here. Not a 1RR violation, and talk page discussion of the disagreement is ongoing. If he wasn't discussing it, I'd say block him, but with discussion no. Calling 2 reverts in >24 hours "out of control behavior of a POV edit warrior" is just a wee bit hyperbolic. ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
:The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a warning, but was to report it here. - ] (]) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Falcon don't be taken in. I'm sorry: 1 minute past 24 hrs is gaming the system and qualifies as 1RR. The so-called "discussion" is token at best. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
:(ec) "not the most neutral observer"? How neutral were you when you reported Knispel in the above thread? How many neutral editors make reports here? 1 percent? Give me a break. This is about you reverting an editor, making a token post at talk, and immediately going back to the article and ''reverting a second editor.'' How can anyone possibly improve the article with your disruption? Stop edit warring. Stop disrupting. Than we'll see improvement. Your POV is not the ''right POV.''&ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:44, 27 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    4. (second IP)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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