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 21:41, 16 October 2012 view sourceFilm Fan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,674 edits →User:Film Fan reported by User:Schrodinger's cat is alive (Result: )← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:39, 16 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,306,929 editsm Archiving 6 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 198 |counter = 491
|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><!--<?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. -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Scuderia Ferrari}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Baldoz}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of libertarian political parties}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|JasonnF}}


'''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:
# {{diff2|1269468204|21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1269467160|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1269462212|20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Fixed discrepancies made by user Lobo151"
#
#
#
#


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1269466345|20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers ]"
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1269467260|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording ]"
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
* 10th revert:
* 11th revert:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
JasonnF has not breached the 3RR in 24 hours, but engaged in a long-term edit war for more than a month.


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] ] 21:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for three months) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Pudukkottai}}
:The article has previously been full protected due to a at the end of August. At that time, Amatulic said he was protecting the article in lieu of blocking both editors. Yet here we are again. Each side has reverted about 11 times over a 7 week period. I think both editors should explain why they should not be blocked. ] (]) 03:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC) <small> The last time around the dispute was the same, but RJFF was not involved. ] (]) 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC) </small>


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F}}
::I have tried to discuss the conflict on the talk page. I have provided rationales for my reverts. Every time I waited some days for JasonnF to answer and counter my arguments. But all JasonnF did was reverting ''immediately'' (within hours) without providing new arguments or seriously trying to talk and to find a solution. --] (]) 10:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
::By the way, I have not been here before about this conflict. The last war was between JasonnF and ] and it was One Night In Hackney who reported JasonnF. --] (]) 10:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi, UKIP had always been on this list until they were removed by RJFF who has undone over 20 edits from various editors adding them in the past year but not removed any of the other parties which are all unsourced. It is hard to find reliable sources describing any political party as libertarian because it isn't a term generally used by the mainstream media, if self-described Libertarian parties with Libertarian policies aren't allowed to be listed then the whole article needs to be removed. Sorry for the late response, my girlfriend uses my computer (doesn't edit) and must have cleared the new message alert.] (]) 03:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Warned. I advise RJFF to use caution also, even though his side of the dispute seems to have more support. If you believe this issue is important, consider opening an ] on the article talk page. ] (]) 15:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] on ] ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Scottish Knights Templar}} <br />
# {{diff2|1269501838|00:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Users being reported: '''{{userlinks|Balantrodach}} and {{userlinks|Paulmagoo}}
# {{diff|oldid=1268811016|diff=1269371545|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) to 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1269370583|09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|1269371545|10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
There is an ] going on at ]. At least two editors are promoting their own groups - at least one using anon. IP addresses. Notes have been left on the article talk page and their talk pages to no effect. Maybe the article should be locked to allow a cool off/realization that they are way outside the ]? Thanks. ] (]) 11:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1269502083|00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
: I have indefinitely semi protected the page as there is a long history of single purpose accounts and IPs engaged in ] editing on that page. I have also topic banned Balantrodach from further editing the page because they have apparently admitted to editing on behalf of the organization, and their edits appear to be problematic. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


:I am revoking the topic ban because it is a ridiculous response. Jehochman has failed to establish whether there is a COI here; the sole basis for his decision is that the editor seems to be POV pushing on a single article, which happens on lots of articles. The proportionate response here is clearly to hand out a 24 hour block for edit-warring and see where that gets us. ] (]) 20:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
::Topic bans are appropriate for disruptive editors in one topic area while still allowing them to edit in others. In that sense, it's a milder sanction than a block.
:See also the history of ] ] 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::In this case however, without a community discussion on the talk page or ], or ArbCom decision, or any other reason described in ], that an admin cannot impose a topic ban on someone for being disruptive. I don't know if this editor has been the subject of past discussion other than here on this page. But now that he is, I would support the topic ban. ~] <small>(])</small> 22:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
:See link to my request to have the page protected ] and that request's denial ]
:::I've taken this to ] as ] is right about ] ] (]) 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
::{{AN3|p|three months}} This has been going on regularly since the last protection expired, and got really fierce lately. Since the article comes under ARBIPA, I will leave a CTOPS notice on talk.
::::I do not see where a COI has been admitted to or established; a COI isn't necessarily a reason for topic banning someone though, it is the nature of their edits which need to be looked at. I do see some extreme unsourced POV editing that needs to be addressed however. The editor only edits on a 2/3 articles, so a topic ban is effectvely an indefinite block in his case to all intents and purposes, which I don't really agree with at this stage. At the moment the disruptive editing patterns can be dealt with through a couple of short term blocks and see if that alters the dynamic of the situation. If the editor refuses to discuss his edits or address his editing patterns then he probably shouldn't be editing at all, so an indefinite block would be the way to go. But I do believe the first sanction should be a proportionate one, and the editor should at least have the opportunity to address our concerns. If he blows it he blows it, but at least he gets the chance. ] (]) 13:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::See ]. You have not revoked editing as you are not an Admin and have not discussed this with the Admin ] ? ] (]) 13:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
::::::I am not able to revoke ''blocking'' because I don't have those set of privileges, but as pointed out above, a ban can only be enforced by a consensus. I don't have to be an admin to point that out. ] (]) 14:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::::*If you didn't have the privilege to revoke the block, then why did you write that you did? ] (]) 13:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked for 24 hours) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==


'''Page:''' ]|<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Afghan mujahideen}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{201.21.238.38}}<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Boackandwhite}}


'''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:
* 5th revert:


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple editors reverting IP for adding unsourced names of people w/o wikipedia articles; no real issue to discuss, though the user has been warned on his/her talk page.


<u>Comments:</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Boackandwhite, a new account with fewer than 100 edits, has already racked up an impressive record of disruption, even if this is more due to ] than bad faith. Boackandwhite's talk page is filled with warnings about and


At ], Boackandwhite reinstated unsourced material after it was challenged (primarily by myself, but also by other ) <u>five separate times in less than a month</u>, eventually merging a source that plainly fails ] to validate the proposed change (and that's excluding multiple IP edits that cannot be conclusively linked to Boackandwhite). In a talk page thread initiated by Boackandwhite, I attempted to explain why his edit had been contested: However, Boackandwhite stopped replying and instead resumed edit warring, apparently convinced that since the U.S., the most powerful member of the NATO alliance, clearly supported the Afghan mujahideen, that must also mean that NATO as a whole can be considered allied to the mujahideen—no sourcing or verification necessary.
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Note also the edit summaries in reverts 4 and 5 which are borderline ]. ] (]) 14:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|blocked| hours}} 'You bastard' is not even borderline. ] (]) 15:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


Even though this can be considered a low-intensity edit war, Boackandwhite's to understand Misplaced Pages's sourcing/content policies and insistence on reverting to restore the perceived ] to our article, coupled with a break in communication from this user, has reached a point where some kind of administrative action may be warranted. Thank you for your consideration.] (]) 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Article locked, stale) ==


:no. i added NATO for his support to gulf war coalition (that included mujaheddin) with operation anchor guardian. ] (]) 09:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lance Armstrong}} <br />
::{{AN3|b|24 hours}} As noted, more about ] than anything else.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Semitransgenic}}
<!-- 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: Page protected) ==
Previous version reverted to: User added (redundant) material about Armstrong being a drug cheat in edit on October 12. The diffs are a little messy because paragraphs were being moved, but if you search for "serial drug cheat" in the diff it will help. (the words were added and removed 5 times)
<!-- 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: <small>21:38 13 October</small>
* 2nd revert: <small>22:47 13 October</small>
* 3rd revert: <small>14:15 14 October</small>
* 4th revert: <small>17:31 14 October</small>
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br />
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|94.187.8.87}}
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was notified on their talk page that their edits were against a consensus on the article talk page and was invited to participate in the discussion. (14:24 14 October). They were also invited to participate on the talk page in edit summaries and warned of edit warring on the talk page . User was not officially warned on their talk page, but they're old enough to know better, have been templated for 3RR in the past, (2011) and already have one block for edit warring.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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: Discussion has been ongoing since Oct 12. is the relevant thread. (User would not participate in discussions until today.) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
::False charge, diffs demonstrate that I addressed chronology and repetition issues.These are not all direct reverts of content. Content was improved, and ] cites were added. Additionally, per ], it's supposed to provide a "''summary of its most important aspects... should be able to stand alone as a concise overview''." This criteria is currently unfulfilled. The reality is, multiple ] sources attest to the fact that Armstrong is now considered cycling's biggest drug cheat, it is not a BLP violation to clearly state this in the lead. ] <sub><small>]</small></sub> 12:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*{{AN3|n}}. I lean toward declining this report, not necessarily because Semitransgenic did not edit war, but because there has been a lot of disruptive edit-warring in the article, which is what led to my locking the article. Honestly, rather than rehash who did what to whom and who should have done x, it would be better if the involved editors would focus on achieving a consensus on the content during this period.--] (]) 12:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
#
::I also meant to add, following , that I have no interest in "edit warring." I attempted to add valid content to the lead, some viewed the material as premature, that's fine. However, right now, relative to the depth of content in the article, the lead is unnecessarily short. ] <sub><small>]</small></sub> 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
#
*{{AN3|p}}
#
*{{AN3|s}}
#
--] (]) 23:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) ==


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Pat Robertson}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Michaelt54}}


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Previous version reverted to:
This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine ] concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ] (]) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p|three days}} by {{u|Randykitty}} ] (]) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page 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|Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations}}
<!-- 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|46.217.186.173}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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 user talk page:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1269599524|13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
User was previously reported , and has continued the ''exact same behavior'' across other articles. He doesn't seem to get edit warring or consensus, thought the first has been explained repeatedly. ] (]) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1269595946|12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff2|1269506198|01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269480789|22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269469278|21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) FASISM TOWARDS MACEDONIA"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:I am not edit warring I provided my resarch and cited my source.--] (]) 22:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1269596351|12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
:: which is original research. Please actually read ], you have been reverting against consensus instead of waiting until discussion is over. You have also violated the ]. This was spelled out to you last time and this time, and the guidelines and policies were linked and provided for you to read. ] is disruptive editing, no matter what you're trying to add. ] (]) 22:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
NO YOU ARE WRONG! I added a Citation to the aritle. I tryed to disscuss it with you and you were critizing and attacking me. I was not disrutptive editing I made my point with a cited source.--] (]) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
:You added a citation ''later'', ''after'' your previous post. What part of ] do you not get? Your refusal to accept that social contract, or even appear capable of understanding what it means, '''is''' disruptive. Multiple warnings have been left on your page asking you to not revert more than three times. What did you do? You reverted more than three times! If you were not writing your messages, I would have to ask if you are illiterate! ] (]) 23:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
I tryed to disscuss it with you who says it's consensus? you? See there you go Attacking again. I was not disrupting I said I was sorry for adding the american christians Category. I now Know It's Redundant but I am not wrong to add the american charistaics category. I made my point with a cited source. The american charismatics category is a new category.--] (]) 23:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
You also broke the rules by edit warring when i was trying to talk to you about it. You riverted 3 times--] (]) 23:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
:Actually read ]. I reverted three times, not more than three times. You crossed 3rr, I did not. Multiple editors reverted you, none restored your edits. That's an indication you were editing against consensus.
:{{ec}}Once again, what part of ] is so hard to understand? I keep linking to ] for a reason. ] IS disruptive editing! See ]. ] (]) 23:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|1 week}}.--] (]) 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Block, semi) ==


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Persistent edit warring. ] (]) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Compulsory voting}} <br />
*{{AN3|p}} ] ] 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|190.233.233.167}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours) ==
<!-- 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. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739)}}
Previous version reverted to:


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


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1269613200|14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|1269609369|14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
# {{diff2|1269569554|09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."


'''Diffs 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 -->
# {{diff2|1269613702|14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


<u>Comments:</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
This is {{user|Jackie d. alarcón}} evading his block. Again. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
:Looks like they're now using ] to continue edit warring. I've put in a request at RPP. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 02:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*'''Result:''' Other admins have blocked the IP and semiprotected the article. The IPs are believed to be socks of ]. ] (]) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


Also LOUT socking with ]. --<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">]--]</sup> 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
:{{AN3|b|72 hours}} from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. ] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mercury(I) hydride}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Whoop whoop pull up}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|SmartLynx Airlines Estonia}}
<!-- 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|TG-article}}
Previous version 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:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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|1269668652|20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
# {{diff2|1269664490|19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1269638908|17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
''See ], ]''. ] (]) 03:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
:No 4 of those were within a single 24-hour period, but I think full protection would be the best solution to this.--] ] 04:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
::The article is in the process of expansion; a full protection order may not be the wisest option in that light.
::Please note: the chembox does not acurately represent the article topic. It has been retrospectively incorrectly modified to its current state by the same user, to reflect his views. ] (]) 04:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
::Since the previous comment, the chembox has been corrected. ] (]) 09:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}} – Article fully protected three days. If any blocks had been issued, they would need to go to both Whoop and Plasmic. Plasmic Physics is warned against any further violation of his topic ban from chemboxes, as imposed at . The references currently in the article don't support Whoop's version. It would be sensible for him to look for reliable sources that show this compound only exists as Hg2H2, as he is claiming. ] (]) 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
::Actually, Plasmic Physics didn't correct the chembox to be consistent with the article text; I did. ] (]) 02:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Correction, and defense are appreciated. ] (]) 06:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


Also edit warring at ], ], ] and ]. User has been told to discuss edits on talk pages on multiple occasions, and seemingly refuses to do so. ] (]) 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


:@] This is not a 3RR violation. I see two reverts. ] ] 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fun House (UK game show)‎‎}} <br />
::No it’s not a 3RR violation - but it’s a user that’s consistently edit warring across multiple pages and refusing to engage in talk pages, which is why I believe it still belongs on the edit warring noticeboard.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|217.39.37.185}}
::Edit: I’ll get the rest of the diffs here in a sec… I used Twinkle for the original report. ] (]) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* ] - {{diff2|1269663239|reversion 1}}, {{diff2|1269667404|reversion 2}} (which was following a pertial reinstatement of their already reverted content)
:::* ] - {{diff2|1269638888|partial reinstatement}} of reverted content, followed by {{diff2|1269666092|reinstating}} his reverted edit
:::* ] - {{diff2|1269664088|reinstating}} their previously reverted content
:::* ] - {{diff2|1269664490|reinstates}} their reverted edit, then {{diff2|1269668652|again partially reinstating}} their reverted edit.
:::* ] - legitimately and in good faith {{diff2|1269497042|alters}} a template, but then after being reverted {{diff2|1269636269|doubles down}} and reinstates the edit.
:::The user has previously been blocked for this exact same behaviour by ], and is nt responding to talk page messages. ] (]) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
<!-- 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. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Wolf Man (2025 film)}}
Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|190.201.157.28}}
<!-- 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:


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1269704227|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor was warned about his behaviour in the edit history, I can only apologize if that was inappropriate but he has clearly been warned.
# {{diff2|1269703995|23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1269673354|20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Reception */"
# {{diff2|1269640157|17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs 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 -->
# {{diff2|1269704229|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion occurred in the edit history, I apologize if it was an error on my part to let that happen.


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u>l <br />This user has repeatedly disruptively edited this and by his own admission other articles by adding a flagrantly irrelevent reference that points to a google archive of a newspaper. this newspaper was published years before the program in question was ever broadcast and cannot possibly contain any relevent information. The editor has used the exact same link to make references in other articles, it is obviously impossible for 1 link to contain such significantly different information.l <br />
# No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
I apologize again if the way i initially dealt with this was not totally correct, it is the first time i have reported something. ]] 00:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2012 Nobel Peace Prize}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Until Dawn (film)}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mocctur}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562}}
<!-- 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|1269723705|01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1269722106|01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1269715862|00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
* 3rd revert:
# {{diff|oldid=1269684805|diff=1269714293|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1269714124|00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Enough with the vandalism already"
## {{diff2|1269714293|00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- 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|1269716711|00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
# {{diff2|1269716853|00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1269719613|01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* We edit by consensus */ new section"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: ].
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
] has not yet breached the 3RR, but he/she massively fuels an edit war in which several other editors are involved (admittedly including myself). He/she has shown no interest whatsoever in discussing or finding a compromise to end the edit war. Two of the reverts were ''after'' my warning against edit warring and my attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page. His/her only reaction to my talk page posts was to revert again and again. Mocctur has recently engaged in other edit wars, too: at ] () and ] () (without breaching 3RR if you regard each article individually, but if you treat them together, the image becomes very disruptive). --] (]) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: ]
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


Regards, —&nbsp;] ] 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Skyfall}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Film Fan}}

<!-- 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:
* 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 user's talk page:

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Three editors have now had their edits reverted by this user. - ] (] • ]) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

* Hmmm, I actually had the block screen filled out a half-hour ago, but I'm busy this aft so I cancelled it. Film Fan has a habit of deciding they are right, no discussion necessary; arguing via edit summary; refusing to compromise or give way; & cetera. Won't bother me if another admin goes ahead with a block, and advise FF that when they return there is a Talk page associated with article pages, and a pointer to WP:BRD. ] (]) 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

::SchroCat was the one who began the edit warring and then kept reverting my correct edit. If anyone should be blocked it should be SchroCat. ] (]) 21:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:39, 16 January 2025

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,
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)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    User:Baldoz reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Scuderia Ferrari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Fixed discrepancies made by user Lobo151"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
    2. 20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: Page protected for three months)

    Page: Pudukkottai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269446497 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) to 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268811016 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
      2. 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pudukkottai."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    See also the history of Pudukkottai Municipal Corporation Dawnseeker2000 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    See link to my request to have the page protected Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/01#c-Dawnseeker2000-20250108183700-Pudukkottai and that request's denial Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/01#c-Daniel_Quinlan-20250108191600-Dawnseeker2000-20250108183700
    Page protected for a period of three months This has been going on regularly since the last protection expired, and got really fierce lately. Since the article comes under ARBIPA, I will leave a CTOPS notice on talk.

    User:Boackandwhite reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

    Previous version reverted to: Boackandwhite's initial bold edit; my revert to last stable version.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. revert 1
    2. revert 2
    3. revert 3
    4. revert 4
    5. revert 5


    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:
    Boackandwhite, a new account with fewer than 100 edits, has already racked up an impressive record of disruption, even if this is more due to lack of competence than bad faith. Boackandwhite's talk page is filled with warnings about adding unsourced or unverifiable content, removing speedy deletion tags out of process for a page created by Boackandwhite himself, uploading an image with no source or license information, and making edits that contravene Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style.

    At Afghan mujahideen, Boackandwhite reinstated unsourced material after it was challenged (primarily by myself, but also by other page-watchers) five separate times in less than a month, eventually merging a source that plainly fails verification to validate the proposed change (and that's excluding multiple IP edits that cannot be conclusively linked to Boackandwhite). In a talk page thread initiated by Boackandwhite, I attempted to explain why his edit had been contested: "Since your source does not directly state that NATO is an ally of the mujahideen, your edit failed verification and has been reverted. If you disagree, then please provide a page number and quote of the relevant excerpt that verifies the claim." However, Boackandwhite stopped replying and instead resumed edit warring, apparently convinced that since the U.S., the most powerful member of the NATO alliance, clearly supported the Afghan mujahideen, that must also mean that NATO as a whole can be considered allied to the mujahideen—no sourcing or verification necessary.

    Even though this can be considered a low-intensity edit war, Boackandwhite's seeming inability to understand Misplaced Pages's sourcing/content policies and insistence on reverting to restore the perceived "truth" to our article, coupled with a break in communication from this user, has reached a point where some kind of administrative action may be warranted. Thank you for your consideration.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    no. i added NATO for his support to gulf war coalition (that included mujaheddin) with operation anchor guardian. Boackandwhite (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours As noted, more about competence than anything else.

    User:94.187.8.87 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Fadlo R. Khuri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 94.187.8.87 (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: User talk:94.187.8.87

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine WP:BLP concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Page protected for a period of three days by Randykitty Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:46.217.186.173 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 46.217.186.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269596382 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
    2. 12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269506258 by MacaroniPizzaHotDog (talk)"
    3. 01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269482182 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
    4. 22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269469326 by JacktheBrown (talk)"
    5. 21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269452155 by Fneskljvnl (talk) FASISM TOWARDS MACEDONIA"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Persistent edit warring. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Asafviki reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)

    Page: Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
    2. 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
    3. 09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    Also LOUT socking with this edit. --Seawolf35 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:TG-article reported by User:Danners430 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: SmartLynx Airlines Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: TG-article (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"
    2. 19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Boeing 737 MAX."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Also edit warring at Batik Air, Boeing 737 MAX, Singapore Airlines Flight 321 and Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268. User has been told to discuss edits on talk pages on multiple occasions, and seemingly refuses to do so. Danners430 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    @Danners430 This is not a 3RR violation. I see two reverts. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    No it’s not a 3RR violation - but it’s a user that’s consistently edit warring across multiple pages and refusing to engage in talk pages, which is why I believe it still belongs on the edit warring noticeboard.
    Edit: I’ll get the rest of the diffs here in a sec… I used Twinkle for the original report. Danners430 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    The user has previously been blocked for this exact same behaviour by User:Canterbury_Tail, and is nt responding to talk page messages. Danners430 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:190.201.157.28 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: )

    Page: Wolf Man (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 190.201.157.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
    4. 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wolf Man (2025 film)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page here

    Comments:

    User:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: )

    Page: Until Dawn (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269714333 by MikeAllen (talk) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269684805 by MikeAllen (talk) Enough with the vandalism already"
      2. 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269684573 by MikeAllen (talk) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Until Dawn (film)."
    2. 00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Until Dawn (film)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "/* We edit by consensus */ new section"

    Comments: I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...

    Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: diff on 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC).

    The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: diff

    Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

    Categories: