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 09:30, 18 March 2013 editKhabarNegar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,402 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:56, 26 December 2024 edit undoCallmehelper (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users656 edits →User:Callmehelper reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: ): ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}<noinclude>{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]{{User:MiszaBot/config
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 209 |counter = 490
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?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: Warned users) ==
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
{{Archive top|result=Editors warned and discussion will continue ONLY at ].--] (]) 19:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of cricket (1726–1740)}} <br />
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BlackJack}}
#
#
#


<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


Previous version reverted to:


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
There's been much discussion, but see particularly ], ], ], among others.


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
*:1.
*:2.
*:3.
*:4.
*:5.
*:6.
*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
*:Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) ] (]) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. ] (]) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's ]. ] | ] 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> --] (] • ]) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <br />
The person who should be reported here is ]. A series of edits were made to ] by members of a college assignment group who are here temporarily to learn about English cricket. They are using a source that is dubious to say the least. I am the main author of the article and others like it as I am a subject matter expert and away from Misplaced Pages I have written widely on the early history of cricket. I have no objection to anyone editing an article as long as they do so using credible sources. There are serious doubts about the credibility and reliability of this particular source which have been discussed at length elsewhere.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Seeing the numerous edits to the article I immediately spotted one statement re a set of rules drawn up for a match in 1727 and I knew immediately that the information was false. I have pointed this out to Murray during his edit war but he has, as usual, ignored the advice. Some of the other statements also seem dubious but I have not had time to check them in detail and I decided the best thing to do was to revert the article back to its last credible version. I did this in good faith to maintain the article's accuracy for the benefit of the readers. Murray is somehow involved in the college assignment (see ]) and he is trying to prove a ] about this source book they are using. As a result, he has repeatedly reverted my removsal of the false and misleading information in this article and refused to take notice of my advice to that effect. He is therefore carrying on an edit war by trying to justify use of an unrecognised source against the advice of subject experts.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
As the article is still "in development", I considered its future earlier today and decided that, when complete, it will be too long so I reduced its scope and moved it. I then made a number of appropriate changes to reflect the revised scope. Much of the misleading information is now out of scope in any case but Murray has ignored this too and has reinserted it, again showing no regard at all for the readers. The article is one that I have in my list to attend to. It is the sequel to ], a ] which has also been subject to interference by Murray's group and was put under a form of protection yesterday to prevent their incursions, again using the same dubious source book.
#
#
#
#


If anyone wants more details, please drop me a line. ----<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


:For what it's worth, what BlackJack says here is simply untrue. It's quite clear that , with which I have no problems at all.
:Nor is this in any sense "Murray's group." --] (] • ]) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


:And regarding the "credibility and reliability of this particular source," I opened a ], so as to resolve that matter. Unfortunately, BlackJack has declined to contribute. --] (] • ]) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::He clearly does not understand the word "scope". The article is now about the years 1726 to 1740 and he has reinserted stuff relative to years following 1740 which are therefore out of scope (and also dubious). No, I did not go to the reliable source page. Why should I? Three subject experts in CRIC have agreed that this book is unreliable and we have set about removing dubious content taken from that book by people new to WP and with no prior knowledge of the subject. The accuracy and integrity of the articles take priority over any ] you wish to make. ----<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
:::Hi BlackJack, could you link to where the subject experts agreed Malcolm's book is unreliable? I looked through WP:CRIC's archives and drew a blank. ] (]) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Not discussed at CRIC, only within article talk pages and the most relevant discussion is . ----<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::In that thread the only person I've seen demonstrate in-depth knowledge of cricket on Misplaced Pages is Jhall1, who said . ] (]) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
If Jhall1 is the "only person" then are you saying that I have not demonstrated in-depth knowledge of cricket? Haven't you noticed who wrote the whole of CRIC's 18th century coverage and most of its 19th century coverage? And besides Jhall1 there is a comment by CDTPP who is new to WP but is also an expert. I know that he is a long-term member of the ACS and he knows as much about early cricket and its recognised authorities as I do. What Murray is saying is that we have to subvert everything the acknowledged authorities (Arlott, Wynne-Thomas, Birley, etc.) have written because he says that this man Malcolm is the definitive authority on the subject and we must populate articles carefully written over many years with crackpot theories like Lang's ludicrous Celtic origin. I'm beginning to believe that I really am wasting my time here and that I should forget WP and just concentrate on my other projects. Clearly, as YellowMonkey and jguk found out in the past, it doesn't matter that you are a subject expert. All that matters is "admins" like Murray who know everything and understand nothing. Go ahead and change the articles and fill them with rubbish and false information. ----<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 08:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
:BlackJack. I am far from saying that "Malcolm is the definitive authority on the subject." I am not even saying that a) he is right or b) he has not been misread by the students in question. I note that, from all appearances, you haven't even read the book. All I am saying is that this is quite clearly a ], as Misplaced Pages understands and defines the term.
:But the place to debate that issue is over at the ], which you still haven't deigned to visit. Here, what's at issue is your response to this disagreement: which involves repeated wholesale reversion, violating the ]. This is not how disagreements are dealt with on Misplaced Pages as you, a long-term editor, well know. --] (] • ]) 08:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
:I am of course aware of your contributions to cricket on Misplaced Pages, and happily consider you an expert. Back in 2009 I tried to lend a helping hand when you were being bombarded with socks. It is quite clear that you don’t think much of Malcolm’s book, so when you said “Three subject experts in CRIC have agreed that this book is unreliable” I interpreted this as meaning three other people agreed with you rather than “Myself and two other subject experts have agreed this book is unreliable”. Please excuse my misunderstanding. However all in all, things don’t seem as strong as you put.


Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:You are very strongly attached to this article, and I think it would be a good idea to step back. People who are beginning to learn about cricket could benefit from your experience and knowledge, but getting into an edit war (and this is clearly a breach of WP:3RR) isn’t going to result in a productive dialogue. ] (]) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


:The editor whose revisions I am trying to undo publicly attacked the subject as an "opportunistic grifter". No one who uses such inflammatory language should be editing the page of this subject. This is common sense and journalism 101. He is clearly motivated by animus against her and should not be editing her page. Why is this even in question? ] (]) 05:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I've read the book and it's risible quite frankly and your comments seem to be attempted to justify nonesense from the standpoint that 'it's good to have a debate.' That's OK but Jack, and it is odd to find my self saying this, is an expert witness. You, with great respect are not, and we should be trying to make a valid encyclopaedia, not a catch all for peripheral theories.] (]) 11:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::@]
:Precisely. Thanks, CD. And apologies to Nev1 for the misunderstanding above: I actually misread your comment.
::"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)
:Right, lets look at the 3RR thing. I read the edits done by two or three members of this class and, given my knowledge of the ] drwan up by Brodick and Richmond in 1727, I realised immediately that the statement about "1727 laws" was completely incorrect and actually misleading. Check the quoted article which contains the actual content of the articles of agreement. Which means, given that the students have quoted Malcolm on this per the citation provided, his book contains false information about an aspect of the sport's history that, as CDTPP will agree and Nev1 will appreciate, is highly significant (i.e., the earliest known written "rules" in cricket history). If Malcolm is providing false information on such a fundamental question as this, then his book can only be considered dubious to say the least. I then looked at some of the other points added and, although I would need to check them in detail, I am very dubious about some of it while more (and this is student error) was simply out of scope. I therefore decided that the best thing to was revert back to the last good version by ] and that I would try and improve the article myself in the near future as it has not received attention for some time.
:::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)
:Next thing I know, Mr Murray comes along and reverts because he thinks I don't know what I'm talking about and how dare I revert material drawn from this wonderful book which CDTPP (who knows a great deal about early cricket, incidentally) has described with justification as "risible". I pointed out when again removing the false information that it is false and misleading, but Mr Murray is one of these who is always right and proceeded to escalate an edit war and then tried to blame me for it. What am I expected to do? Allow an article to be ruined by lies? ----<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 17:40, 15 March 2013 (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) ==
*There are many processes in place to deal with content disputes, and making five reverts in a content dispute in less than 24 hours isn't one of them. Unless I'm missing something, this is a crystal clear violation of the ] ] ] (]) 22:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:*It is indeed. However, Jbmurray reverted four times, which is also a violation. Shall I block them both?--] (]) 23:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I hadn't actually noticed that when I posted my comment. I would be less inclined to block Jbmurray than BlackJack, since he's at least made an active effort to try to resolve the problem and hasn't demonstrated significant civility issues (he's brought it up at ], ], and the talk page of the article.) Given that both have committed technical violations, if I were you (or if I had a mop) I think I would be inclined to ask each person if they saw what was wrong with their actions and block them if they didn't make a positive commitment to stop editwarring and resolve the content dispute through a more appropriate channel. ] (]) 23:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
{{od}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}
That's fair enough, although I don't think anyone has asked the question anywhere yet, certainly not on my talk page. Right, lets go through this. First off, this article unlike ] is nowhere near complete and I subsequently decided to reduce its scope by moving it from 1726–1763 to 1726–1740. On 11 March, about five members of the Cricket and Englishness course introduced numerous changes all based on their single source which is a new book written by one Dominic Malcolm. I found these changes two days later and immediately, given my extensive knowledge of the subject matter, realised that this statement is false and misleading: "Articles of Laws from 1727 first prohibited the questioning of umpires decisions and therefore decreed them as the final source on conflict resolution and dispute settlement. One such law decreed that "umpires were to be the judges of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended". Obviously, I could just have removed that or revised it somehow but I had serious doubts about several other inputs too, including some outside the scope of the article (e.g., events occurring in the 1770s). I decided, therefore, that the best thing to do was revert and make a note to review and improve the article.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Later the same day, without making any attempt to ask me for the details of my action, Jbmurray came along and reverted my edit. In doing so, he reinserted information that is false, dubious (subject to detailed checking) or out of scope. His stated reason was that "Malcolm is far from being an unreliable source". Jbmurray knows little about the early history of cricket while both ] and myself are experts. CDTPP has read and reviewed the Malcolm book and has dismissed it as "risible" (see above). I am convinced, having seen the edits done at ] and in this article that it is unreliable and is completely out of step with the consensus achieved by the subject's recognised authorities in their respective works which are the ones I have used when building these articles.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
I am not going to stand aside and allow someone who knows nothing about my subject to insert content that is frankly rubbish and so I reverted Jbmurray's edit and gave an explanation within the limits of the edit summary: "Reverted; the stuff in Malcolm's book if quoted correctly is wrong; e.g., nowhere in 1727 "laws" is the stated text included: see ]. The source is unreliable". Any reasonable person would at this point have checked the 1727 statement against the content of ] but Jbmurray did not do so. That article includes the precise wording of the 1727 "rules" and a quick scan shows the falsity of the statement which the students found in Malcolm's book.
#
#
#
# (second IP)


After making this revert and directing Jbmurray to ], I decided I would make some improvements to the article. I moved it because when it is eventually finished it will be too long if it covers a forty-year period so I decided on a 15-year scope. I made some content adjustments to comply with that and a few copyedits, nothing too extensive as I didn't have time. Within an hour, Murray made his third revert and he clearly had not verified that the 1727 statement was false. He did at least maintain the edits I had just made given the new scope. Again, he made no attempt to discuss the matter and just wrote in the edit summary that he was undoing a mass revert.


After that it was a case of not giving in. I am the subject expert and the only other expert in this area who uses WP, although he is new, entirely agrees with me that the source is unreliable. As I see it, I have to prevent articles losing veracity and credibility. Jbmurray on the other hand is simply making a ] about allowing this university class ''carte blanche''. You can see what his attitude is like in other discussions such as with his "let the madness continue" jibe.


My initial action in reverting the students' edits to this article was ''bona fide'' and done in the best interest of the article. If the students had written to me to ask why I had undone their work I would have told them; and I would have explained it to Jbmurray if he would ask and also listen but he has shown that he does not listen and thinks that he can ride roughshod over other people's work and expect them to wave him through. I did not commence an "edit war". That began with Jbmurray's revert and was then escalated by him with this revert which was done after I had made a start on improving the article. His attitude and actions are completely unreasonable and taking his point to both this page and ANI is completely OTT.


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Whatever the outcome of this dispute, someone should report Jbmurray to whatever process screens admins with a view to him being removed from the adminship. ----<b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 13:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}}. I have commented at ANI and warned both editors there. The discussion should continue there, not here.--] (]) 19:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Itamar Marcus}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|93.173.149.97}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <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. -->
I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a stating {{tq|I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here.}}, and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. {{userlinks|CipherRephic}} was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop after being warned and has not broken 3RR. ] | ] 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Marc Benioff}}
<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|99.98.190.59}}
<!-- 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:


'''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:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{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:'''
Article is related to the Israel Palestine conflict and under ARPBIA 1rr restrictions. ] (]) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265024674|18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
*{{AN3|d}}. Seems to have quieted down. There were warning issues here, which is why I did not take action earlier. I did add an edit notice to the article to help in the future.--] (]) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265033023|18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
# {{diff2|1265024924|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Same-sex marriage}} and {{pagelinks|Pope Francis}} <br />
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Pass a Method}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
<!-- 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. -->
;Same-sex marriage
For background on this case, please see November AN3 case that resulted in a 48 hour block of Pass a Method. In that case, Pass a Method was edit warring on this very same article to include links to various small religions, specifically, ], ]ns, ], ], and ]. While some of these eventually stuck, the Eckankar didn't. Today, Pass a Method effectively continued the old edit war, forcing the Eckankar link into the article.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dune: Part Two}}
Previous version reverted to: (Check any of the 4 reverts above)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "clarifying what i wrote")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Pass a Method. (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "ok, added a source")</small>


'''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 -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (not that a warning was required, since the user was blocked a couple months ago for edit warring in the same article, same section.)


'''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 -->
# {{diff2|1265161751|12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|1265079289|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1265038799|19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1264974672|12:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Pope Francis
# {{diff2|1265079184|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
Pass a Method also breached 3RR at ] where they made a series of bold edits and reverts related to the headings of "Gay Marriage", "Gay Adoption", and a quote about Gay Adoption being the "Devil's work".
# {{diff2|1265080757|00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|1265080353|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"
* (create section headings for Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption); , , . (Restoring headings)
* (add "Devil's work" quote); (Restore Devil quote).
*:<small>All edits were on March 14.</small>


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Diff of warning (note: not a 3RR warning): .


User continues edit warring and doesn't discuss edits even after having been requested to, not even explaining their reversions in their edit summary. ] (]) 13:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
:{{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: ) ==
: The November report was filed by a sock who is currently blocked. Nevertheless i agree with Nat with what he said about bypassing redirects. ] ] 23:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::Yeah, I realized that (in hindsight) and I'm sorry that I am filing a similar report to a sock puppet. But what does ] have to do with anything? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
* Both Anselm and Pass a method were edit warring, why does the report not include both? The report is now stale, it's been over 24 hours since any edit warring. From ] it seems what was really needed was more opinions; not a block of one of the edit warring editors. ] (]) 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Callmehelper}}
::I didn't report St. Anselm because they stopped at 3RR, whereas Pass a Method was at 4RR on two different articles. More opinions would have certainly been helpful, but in my opinion, what was really missing was good old fashioned BRD. I made the report because I'm tired of the BRRRRRR pattern (7 edits, 6 reverts). <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 15:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
::I stopped at three reverts and started the talk page discussion. ]] (]) 19:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}}. Pass a method behaved badly in the article. The main reason I didn't block earlier was because the content issue seems to have sorted itself out, placing the Eckan thingamajigger in a diferent part of the section. Unless I'm wrong (quite possible), that seemed to resolve the issue. StAnselm is correct that they stopped at 3 reverts, although that doesn't preclude sanctions for edit warring (something to think about please in the future). As for the Pope Francis article, that has so much activity on it, it's like looking through a jungle. If some other admin wants to see whether Pass a method deserves to be blocked for their conduct on that article, that's fine, but don't forget all the other editors on that article who have probably reverted more than 3x in a 24-hour period. Block city.--] (]) 20:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Flag of Syria}} <br />
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GhiathArodaki}}
#
#
#




<!-- 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&action=history


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544561674
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544447044
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544446852
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544374558
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544155642


'''Diff 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 -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Alhanuty#Syria_red_flag


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> Frequent uncivil conduct and restoration of unnecessary information, is not assuming good faith, proactively asserts ] of article by reverting changes made to it by any member for being "inconsistent and confusing", claiming a lack of concensus, has engaged in inappropriate use of reversions on Flag of syria, and i told him that wikipedia isn't a place to put your own opinion,and i gave the reasons and explanations why it has the article to stay as it is,then he says that the council doesn't represents me,asserting that he wants the article to go with his opinion and not go with consensus .] (]) 13:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


Hey , I'm not putting my opinion , it's the truth , and what's wrong with you ? , COUNCIL DOESN'T Represent me , do you want it to represent me in your mind ?] (]) 10:58, 17 March 2013 (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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


:It's me @].
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Akuma (Street Fighter)}} <br />
:'''Clarification by my side ; '''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Disturbedasylum}}
:Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.

:* ''Disputes details'' ;
<!-- 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. -->
:# Firstly , I edit ] check history of that page from to

:#''' process of reverting by others and my responses'''
Previous version reverted to:
:** 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 ]
<!-- 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. -->
:Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there
Diffs of the user's reverts:
: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'''
<!-- 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 -->
: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.
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
:Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, unfortunately. I neglected to warn him.
: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.
<!-- 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:
:I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.

:Much Regards. ] (]) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />I've given him disruptive editing warnings and tried to reach out to him through ], pointing him to the article talk page and encouraging him to use edit summaries. Both attempts have been ignored. I find it impossible to communicate with him. He has broken 3RR, though I neglected to put a warning on his talk page. His edits are mostly to preserve what I believe to be an excessively large reception section. ''']'''</sup></font>]] 02:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. Both editors breached ]. I have left messages on both editors' talk pages advising them that will not be blocked if they agree not to edit the article for 7 days.--] (]) 20:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Great Seljuq Empire}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Janicar}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
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 -->
<!-- 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: User:Janicar and his IPs have started no discussion on the talk page and have ignored all calls to do so.

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User:Janicar and his IPs(131.180.143.48, 80.112.146.109) have reverted 3 other editors. Calls to start a discussion on the talk page have met with these responses;
# "''undid disruptive editing''"
# "''Undid disruptive editing, please don't delete any contribution to wikipedia without consulting to the talk page yourself.''"
# "''Undid disruptive editing, let's discuss this on the talk page before just deleting things''". Note:Nothing has been discussed on the talk page.
# "''Settle your disputes on the talk page first, before deleting any contribution for this artcile.''" Note:Rather odd, since Janicar and his IPs refuse to discuss anything!
# "''Undid disruptive editing, see talk page''". Note:There is no discussion on the talk page.
# "''Undid disruptive editing, take your concerns to the talk page yourself, before disruptively editing. Delete by an unfounded claim. (How many accounts have you got?''". Note:<u>Accusation of sockpuppetry</u> towards User:Bobrayner, which is ironic, since User:Janicar is logging out to continue edit warring.<br>
User:Janicar and his IPs have continued to edit war against 3 other editors, Users:Zheek, Bobrayner and myself. All attempts to have him take this to the talk page have failed.<br>
As a side note, I noticed IP 80.112.146.109 was heavily involved in edit warring on ] and subsequently blocked by Favonian.<br>
''Prima facie'' evidence would appear to show that Janicar has been edit warring over numerous articles and simply logging out to do so. --] (]) 18:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:I think this user and those IP users are socks of ]. Similar behavior, similar edits/edit warring, similar edit summaries (poor English), and same articles. For instance see the edits on this template and talk page: ]. ] (]) 18:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
::Another similar activities/edits on the article ]. , . ] (]) 18:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}}. I have a few comments. First, it would be better for any one of the reverting editors to take the dispute to the talk page, not just "call" for Janicar to do so. Janicar might not respond, but at least then you would have tried. Second, there are multiple IPs involved, and although more than one geolocates to Ankara, at least one geolocates to the Netherlands. Third, with respect to the socking accusations leveled above (not by Janicar), please take that to ]. This isn't the right place. Finally, as for the some of the other pages mentioned, I advise all concerned to be careful of edit warring. I didn't block Janicar for breaching ], which he didn't do; I blocked him for edit warring.--] (]) 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|6 (New York City Subway service)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Vcohen}}

<!-- 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:

#1 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544627113
#2 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544631028
#3 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544676147
#4 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544679687
#5 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544679687
#6 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544690124
#7 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544698276
#8 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544709657
#9 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544715769

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&action=history

*{{AN3|b|1 week}}. I blocked the IP. This is a resumption of an edit war the IP was warned about earlier this month. In addition, the edits themselves were disruptive.--] (]) 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined and Dogmaticeclectic warned) ==

{{Archive top|result=Retaliatory report.--] (]) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)}}

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Microsoft Office 365}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ViperSnake151}}

<!-- 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|Microsoft Office 365|next|543698790}}

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|Microsoft Office 365|prev|544168907}}
# {{diff|Microsoft Office 365|prev|544285840}}
# {{diff|Microsoft Office 365|prev|544287661}}
# {{diff|Microsoft Office 365|prev|544290006}}
# {{diff|Microsoft Office 365|prev|544481500}}

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff|User talk:ViperSnake151|prev|544456126}}

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: {{diff|Talk:Microsoft Office 365|prev|544423168}}

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
I would ask that neither ] nor ] handle this, as both of these administrators have previously been involved and, more importantly, both have - at least - shown serious errors of judgement.

The user being reported has now got one user (myself) blocked and another blocked from editing the article in question (the other user is unregistered and the user I'm reporting got semi-protection applied). Once the IP user was no longer able to edit the article, this user almost completely ignored the IP user's numerous objections at the talk page and continued to edit the version of the article this user preferred. After that, I stepped in and reversed most of the changes this user made against the objections of the IP user, but was subsequently blocked after this user filed a report against me for a different - though directly related - article. After I was blocked, this user continued to edit the article in question, including at least partially reverting one edit of mine.

This user has also recently been involved in edit wars at other articles: ] and ]. I placed a total of six (!) warning templates on the reported user's talk page as that is the minimum number of policies this user has recently violated. The user simply removed them all.

Additionally, this user seems to have been very deceptive in dealing with these matters: opening a ] case about the first article and even mentioning me by username, but not including me in the case (or notifying me of it) and opening a discussion at the second article's talk page after filing a report against me here and then going back and editing the "iff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" to link to that are examples of this. This user has also made numerous accusations against multiple other users, many, if not all, of which are clear examples of ], and at least some of which - the multiple ] accusations against me in particular - are actually groundless altogether.

As a final note, one of this user's latest edits involved reverting the IP user in question's relevant comments at the article in question's talk page (!), accusing those comments of violating ] - when in fact the comments in question would not be violating that policy even if they were not relevant to that particular talk page.
] (]) 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}}. This is a retaliatory report. Dogmaticeclectic is '''warned''' that if they continue, they will be blocked for longer than their last block.--] (]) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}

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

This user, no less than 6 hours after the page was left unprotected, proceeded to use both his an an alternate account to make immediate edits without getting any consensus in the talk page or allowing his comments in the talk page to be mediated upon for any time what so ever. The user merely leveraged the talk page as an edit summary. Upon notifying the user to adhere to wiki talk page standards after getting mediation from Penwhale on the topic, the user undoes my remediation and claims I am edit warring. I am trying to follow the wiki rights, but this users must receive a temp ban for this.
See his 'notification' that he is altering something.
This is the edits him and the socket puppet did (within same time frame, and same topics vein of topics).

This page must be protected again, or this user must be banned, he is in direct violation of the admin's request. Will an admin please research the users IP addresses User:Scientiom and user:Somedifferentstuff <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:If you look at the top of this board you'll see a case I recently brought against this user. User:Penwhale handled that case. Today this IP violated the neutrality of a BLP article by removing the addition made by User:Scientiom. I placed an Edit Warring Warning on his talk page as well as a note on Penwhale's talk page. As evidenced by this malformed complaint, this IP has around 100 edits on Misplaced Pages. His belligerence is disruptive to the project. He blanked his talk page today as can be seen here. ] (]) 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:'''NOTE TO ADMIN: I DID NOT REPORT THIS USER TODAY. HE FILLED OUT THE FORM INCORRECTLY.''' ] (]) 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|1 week}}. I blocked the IP for edit-warring, personal attacks (sock puppet accusations), and disruptive editing (this report, among other things). I've changed the section header to show who reported this (Somedifferentstuff, no need to shout).

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of postmodern writers}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|89.139.163.96}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
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 -->
<!-- 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: None. I am not directly involved in the article conflict.

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

The user was warned after 3 reverts made to preserve their removal of a particular author's name from the list, and then they proceeded to blank their talk page to remove the warning and continued to revert to maintain their POV without concern for consensus. I have no direct involvement with the conflict on the page and have simply observed it from the outside. ] (]) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:Also, after these reverts, the editor continued to push his POV on the author with these additions. , , and (which were then reverted ). ] (]) 18:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}. I blocked the IP for longer than conventional because of edit-warring on other articles. They seem to be tackling a lot of lists.--] (]) 19:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|David Archuleta}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|94.156.112.192}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
The IP address is changing an image repeatedly without edit summaries or talk page discussions and has been reverted by a few editors. Just 33 minutes after receiving a warning about their 3rr, they reverted again without any discussion. It is also possible that this IP address is a sockpuppet of a banned user and if so should be added to ], who made the same edit with two different accounts. ] (]) 19:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|3 months}} for sock puppetry and edit warring.--] (]) 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Joseph McCarthy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|MoFreedom}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
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 -->
<!-- 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: Fat&Happy hasn't warned or discussed, I added this after another user claimed removal of the POV was vandalism.

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

POV warrior, a couple of previous insertions of the same material as an IP. While there has been a move in conservative circles to rehabilitate McCarthy, and it probably deserves mention, putting a vindication into Misplaced Pages's voice and offering editorial commentary is not appropriate. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 22:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:I was about to bring this here, too. User doesn't seem interested in working things out on the talk pages either. ] (]) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:User is definitely persisting in inserting his POV on both Joseph McCarthy and ] without talking things through on the talk pages. Doesn't appear to show any inclination of stopping, either, and any further warnings are probably useless. I've requested a FP at ] for both articles. -] (]) 22:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

::Three more reverts. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}.--] (]) 22:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: 48 hours) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Product activation}}

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

'''Time reported:''' 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 544278197 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 545052870 by ] (]) no ] at talk page (including about ])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by ] (]): Take it to the talk page. (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 545082813 by ] (]) see talk page discussion")</small>

Dogmaticeclectic was not warned this time, but has been warned many times about editwarning and just came off a block for editwarring on a different article. They should know the rules by now without being warned. There are only 3 within the last 24 hours but their last 4 edits are all reverts of the same info.

—] (]) 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:As my edit summaries show, I've asked several users to take this issue to the talk page - where I have provided an explanation - instead of reverting. ] (]) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
::Instead of edit warring why didn't you take it to the talk page? ] (]) 23:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} Not technically a 3RR violation, but continuing to edit war after various editors have told advised him not to over the past few days. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Southaven High School‎<!-- -->}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Cessna38671<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

User has been blocked , both times for a one-week interval, for edit warring at ] and has now repeated without discussion. For the record, during the most recent block, there was suspicious IP activity necessitating semi-protection of the article; I'm not filing a RPP request at this time. ] (]) 06:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|<!-- Place name of article here -->Sanctions against Iran}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|KhabarNegar<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

<!-- 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:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545162599&oldid=544859086

<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=544859485&oldid=544859086
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545007502&oldid=545006687
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545007687&oldid=545007502
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545008203&oldid=545007687
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545012592&oldid=545011341
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545018967&oldid=545016321
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545046017&oldid=545039310
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545048340&oldid=545046946

<!-- 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545046017&oldid=545039310 / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AKhabarNegar&diff=545164777&oldid=545143981

<!-- 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 -->http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sanctions_against_Iran
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ASanctions_against_Iran&diff=545061571&oldid=544869527

] (]) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->It started with a simple edit, asking user to at least include information about Iran in a Contribution, then set up the portion on the talk page. He reverted and I pretty much just let it go, then two other users attempted what I did, the guy was a bit non-sensical, tried to talk to him, but either hes a little off-kilter or is having trouble with English as he is an apparent non-English speaker. ] (]) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)




: Hello, The talk page of the article is yet not used by you ], Please use the talk pages of the articles, Plus do not try to damage other users good edits buy putting false edits in between and then deleting them all together...
: There are some points here below:

: 1- I have no problem talking English.

: 2- Check my edits, They have no problem. above user added edits and claims by false sources. And then another user came and delete a huge amount of the article good and false altogether. I asked so many time and beg to use talk page before deleting any sourced text. (Please check all my own edits.) All is needed here is that people use talk page before deleting any good sourced part, SEPARATELY. They two are cheating. Read history carefully to see what I mean.

: 3- This one is very important: Please check recent edits by this above user (]) he had done some edits which have claims which are not in the sources which he provided, plus some claims without any source.

: They are trying to force a cheat, take time and see the situation (specially history) carefully, Thanks.

:] (]) 07:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

::: and look here!

::: above links (No.2 & No.5 & No.6 & No.7 & No.8) are mostly his own edits!

::: You see how they are cheating, They delete the whole good and false parts altogether, At once.
::: Without using the talk page before.
:::] (]) 07:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:56, 26 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: )

    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)
    Categories: