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

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

Revision as of 05:03, 23 September 2013 editAwilley (talk \| contribs)Administrators14,150 edits →User:Srich32977 reported by User:MilesMoney (Result: ): no violation, but advising all parties to tread carefully until the dispute is resolved.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:44, 27 December 2024 edit undoFylindfotberserk (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers165,720 edits More diffs and explanation
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{pp-move\|small=yes}}{{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 = ~~223~~		\|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' 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:Warning) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PaleoFile}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' ]<br />
	'''User being reported:''' ]

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- 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: Version prior to reverts by MilesMoney.

	<!-- 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:
	# MilesMoney hatted section of discussion (no hat summary or edit summary comment, but did add discussion commentary)
	# ] unhatted, with edit summary
	# MilesMoney re-hatted, no edit summary but did add hat comment
	# ] (OP) unhatted table with edit summary about refactoring other editor talk page comments
	# MilesMoney removed the table with the edit comment "do not misquote editors"

	<!-- 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:
	# Message left on MilesMoney talk page about disruptive removal of material.
	# MilesMoney removed talkpage message with edit summary ]

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	When the table was originally posted on the RSN editors were invited to post concerns about changes needed. (The table endeavors to summarize editor comments in the RSN.) MilesMoney did post some comments, and changes were made by me. When the changes were made, I again asked for comments about needed changes. At that stage MilesMoney did the removal of the table. – ] (]) 06:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
	:I restored the table a few minutes ago, then I noticed the existence of this 3RR discussion. It appears to me that MilesMoney did not like the table because it showed all too plainly that his position was in the minority. Of course, the purpose of the table was to show that a clear majority had been reached. ] (]) 06:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	If you want to see the blow-by-blow action, I've listed the relevant versions. But then I hatted it, because I realized that it's a distraction from the bottom line, which is that I haven't violated ] and Rich's initial report is full of errors. This is where ] comes in. ] (]) 08:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

			] \| ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{hat\|Blow by blow}}
			*Both users have been {{AN3\|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	* *
			*:Those users and {{userlinks\|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
	* *
	* *		*:1.
	*		*:2.
	*		*:3.
	*		*:4.
	*		*:5.
	* *		*:6.
	* *		*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
			*:Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) ] (]) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	*
			*::17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. ] (]) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	*
			*:::If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's ]. ] \| ] 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	*
			*::Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	*
			*{{ping\|ToBeFree}} The problem persists, ] and ] continue their edit war / vandalism on both pages. --] (]) 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*
			*:Thank you very much for the notification, {{u\|Jens Lallensack}}. Both blocked indefinitely, the latter unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. ] (]) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	* *
	* *
	* *
	* *
	*
	* *

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
	So, what we have here is collusion between Rich and Blinkersnet, tag-teaming to edit-war so as to keep a table that inaccurately attributes views to other editors. Now they're here, complaining about me, despite their very dirty hands. The relevant policy is ]. ] (]) 07:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lindy Li}} <br />
	I should also point out that Rich's initial summary is inaccurate. He claims that I did not add a hat comment initially. That's , as his own link shows. ] (]) 07:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
	{{hab}}
	Sigh... I posted this AN3 after MilesMoney did the "hat — re-hat — removal" of the table. My alternatives were to restore and/or post a ]. Given the fact that Miles' "blow by blow", seeks to argue the RSN by claiming rudeness, dirty-hands, inaccuracy, false accusation, intimidation, mis-quotations, etc., I am more inclined to go with an ANI based on ]. Please feel free to close this AN3 with no action. – ] (]) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	:User Srich has been tendentiously pursuing various minor issues on several articles recently. After having requested guidance on/removal of certain blog-sourced content on RSN, Srich declined to respond to various dissents and requests for clarification from other editors, including MilesMoney. Srich then abruptly posted a request for closure at AN and posted the disputed table on the RSN thread. The table misrepresents the views of editors who disagree with Srich in violation of . The RSN thread itself is long, convoluted unfocused and inconclusive. The timing and content of Srich's posting of this table has the unfortunate appearance of a tactic to unduly influence the decision of the closing Admin toward Srich's point of view in this matter. I pointed this out and asked Srich to strike through the table, but he declined to do so -- instead, he responded as if I had asked him to correct his misstatement of my view. At that point, I realized he would not cooperate and walked away. Shortly thereafter, editor MilesMoney also objected to the table and hatted it. The series of reverts followed. This sequence was precipitated by Srich's violation of WP policy and his failure to respond constructively when his lapse was explained to him. If anyone needs a warning/block in this situation it would appear to be Srich, an experienced editor of whom we expect much better. His needs to stop his recent tendentious behavior, in my opinion. ]] 16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	::You're right on the money, no pun intended. I like to think the best of people, but the fact that Rich is shopping around for someplace else to report me makes it hard to believe his heart is in the right place. If he really cared about the issues, he'd at least try to debate them (and not just by repeating stuff that we all know is wrong). So, yeah, he's being a tendentious editor in a big way. ] (]) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	{{AN3\|w}} {{ping\|MilesMoney}} Please be very careful about editing the comments of other editors (including hatting). If someone reverts your editing/hatting of others' comments, '''do not''' revert them. If two different editors revert you, '''absolutely do not''' revert again. Please consider this a warning about ]. And for heaven's sake, use edit summaries. (No opinion on whether the table was accurate or on the underlying dispute.) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Don't worry, I've learned not to be baited into reverting when SRich and Blinkersnet double-team me and try to trick me into violating ]. I hatted because he was misquoting me, which I believe is also against the rules and deserving of at least a warning. ] (]) 22:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			#
			#
			#
			#

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angellica Bell}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Evertatops}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

			Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Details that the IP didn't mention.
	* The editor has been warned multiple times not to edit war (see ]).
	* They are edit warring to include trivia from a tabloid in an article covered by ] despite having been reverted and without any attempt to discuss the issue.
	* They have made a total of 147 edits since registering their account without making a single edit on an article talk page.
	* They also appear to be edit warring at another BLP, ].
	<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 16:47, 20 September 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)
	*Edit warring is still continuing at ] even after being notified of this ANEW case. ] (]) 16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
			::@]
	*{{AN3\|a}} for 24 hours by ]. ] (]) 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
			::"This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand ] and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. ] • ] • ] 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. ] (]) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. ] • ] • ] 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). , for those curious. ] (]) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 ~~hours~~) ==		== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Prince~~ ~~William,~~ ~~Duke of Cambridge~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|~~Evertatops~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
	# {{diff2\|573803301\|17:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 573798223 by ] (])"
			#
	# {{diff2\|573797407\|16:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 573797127 by ] (])"
			#
	# {{diff2\|573796493\|16:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 573792862 by ] (])"
			# (second IP)

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

			'''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
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	Now the user is moving on to another article ]. This user must be stopped. ] (]) 18:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	And another - ]. The user is showing absolutely no sign of heeding multiple warnings or even the notifications of this process here and the one above. ] (]) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|a}} for 24 hours by ]. ] (]) 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

			== ] 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. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Marc Benioff}}
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|99.98.190.59}}
	<!-- 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:
	#
	# <br/>Above are the two recent diffs showing edit warring. There's been lots and lots of edit warring prior to this, as well as , and dispute resolution efforts regarding both in other forums (including a couple that he opened while was still open) but the above is what's recent; there's no 3RR violation, it's clearly edit warring though. A couple of TJRC's many previous article reverts:
	#
	#

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	In the past, instead of answering my questions, he's deleted my questions from the article talk page not once - or twice - but three times - — justified only by a ''false'' claim that his edits were removing interruptions from his comments; if you look at those diffs, you'll see they do no such thing. All these three diffs show is TJRC removing my own additions to my own comments. Yet, TJRC still maintains that these edits were not improper, even after he was told otherwise, even by others, at AN/I!

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			# {{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:'''
	I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page. . All he's done lately is reverted-without-talk.
			# {{diff2\|1265024674\|18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
	Diff of most recent attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{diff2\|1265033023\|18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{diff2\|1265024924\|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	After the edit shown in the very first diff above, I wrote the following on the talk page to TJRC, but his only response was to revert, yet again (second diff, above).
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
	:::If you're not going to discuss things, then don't don't revert; to do do is to edit war. Specifically: I edited, adding the comment,
	::::''Per TJRC's TP suggestion that we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law."''
	:::I edited <u>per your suggestion</u>. <u>And yet</u>: Your response was ():
	::::''Reverted to revision 569514616 by TJRC: Revert to the version approved by two editors; Elvey is the lone wolf here. (])''
	:::A reminder: ] says, " serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important."
	:::Should I not take you on your word when you suggested we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" ?

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Dune: Part Two}}
	All I really want to do is leave the article in a state such that a reader is not left with the wrong impression about state works. So long as this article indicates that the works of some states are PD, that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law, or doesn't lead the reader to believe otherwise, we should be good. TJRC finds my wording unacceptable and keeps reverting it, but won't offer wording that is acceptable that does what he had at one time agreed was acceptable - "''include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law''" (that last quote is a quote from TJRC (!)) The worst of the insanity is that he keeps reverting me, claiming I'm a lone wolf, when what I'm doing is adding what he said he had no objection to! It's inexplicable. I feel TJRC is too often ], which is why I think A 0RR or 1RR restriction is warranted. If he was here to improve the encyclopedia, the article would certainly "''include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law''" in it by now.--] (]) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ChasePlowman2014}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# {{diff2\|1265161751\|12:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1265079289\|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1265038799\|19:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1264974672\|12:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			# {{diff2\|1265079184\|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
			# {{diff2\|1265080757\|00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Fermat's Last Theorem}}
			# {{diff2\|1265080353\|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|91.154.115.69}}

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

			User continues edit warring and doesn't discuss edits even after having been requested to, not even explaining their reversions in their edit summary. ] (]) 13:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			:{{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)
	# {{diff2\|573903741\|11:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)}} ""
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|573899753\|11:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)}} ""
			**Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the ] explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- ] <small>(] \| ])</small> 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|573898926\|11:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)}} "It can can proposed, that for the "demonstration" Fermat tried to depict the powers of n of subsequent integers as a number line, starting with 1^n and always determined the site of power of n of next integer by adding the nexus number ,"
			**:{{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)
	# {{diff2\|573898669\|11:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)}} "It can can proposed, that for the "demonstration" Fermat tried to depict the powers of n of subsequent integers as a number line, starting with 1^n and always determined the site of power of n of next integer by adding the nexus number ,"

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	The user was warned very clearly in my final edit summary, and then took a break before reinstating the same dubious content again. ]<sup><span title="I am my own derivative">x</span></sup>]]345 12:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} Since it's now 24 hours since you created this thread, I would be inclined to consider it stale (why didn't someone resolve it before now?), but the user came back 24 hours after the first edit to do more of the same, so it plainly wasn't stale. ] (]) 14:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Uralic languages}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Kwamikagami}}

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article 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. -->

	~~Previous~~ ~~version~~ ~~reverted~~ to:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

			<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)
	<!-- 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:
	# 01:51, 20 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami ''"worse map: it makes extra room for Yukaghir, which is not Uralic"''
	# 04:17, 20 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami ''"now you're falsifying sources"''
	# 04:24, 20 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami ''"knock off the bullshit"''
	# 10:31, 21 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami ''"rv to map of correct family per BOLD"''

			:It's me @].
	<!-- 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 -->
			:'''Clarification by my side ; '''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			:Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:* ''Disputes details'' ;
			:# Firstly , I edit ] check history of that page from to
			:#''' process of reverting by others and my responses'''
			:** then and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes ] then i thought matter would be solved.
			:*But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement and my response of revert and discussion on his talk page ]
			:Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there
			:Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk ] but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on ]
			:So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.
			:the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under ] or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.
			:so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .
			:'''Conclusion'''
			:So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.
			:Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.
			:i left a discussion on ] page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources ].
			:I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.
			:
			:I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.
			:Much Regards. ] (]) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|d}} Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. ] (]) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}} <br />
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}
	Seems Kwamikagami waited out the 24 hour period before making his 4th revert. I found a more detailed and better looking map used in German Misplaced Pages so I translated it and replaced the existing map (which BTW was originally created by myself as ] back in 2007). Kwamikagami reverted the new map because it <u>included</u> Yukaghir. Okay, so I removed Yukaghir from the map to accommodate his objection, but then Kwamikagami still reverted because it <u>excluded</u> Yukaghir, claiming it was a "falsification", expressing his battleground mentality "" and then subsequently edit warred over the image at commons to re-include Yukaghir even though he objected to its inclusion, which seems somewhat ]y and may be related to a wider issue that other editors have noticed about Kwamikagami's recent behaviour and --] (]) 12:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	* Reverting the map at Commons wasn't WP:POINTy; if the map isn't a faithful reproduction of the original it may count as WP:SYNTH. — ] (]) 12:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Sure, if the map was a reproduction of a published source. But this map was created by a German Wikipedian, we don't know for sure how faithful that map is to the original source used by this German Wikipedian, and as we can see this editor made many different permutations of that map, for example another including Altaic and Turkic in addition to Uralic , so omitting Yukaghir from a map meant to focus on Uralic is legitimate. But objecting to the inclusion of Yukaghir while simultaneously objecting to the exclusion of Yukaghir from a map that was not a reproduction but created by a Wikipedian, is certainly untoward. --] (]) 13:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::ah ok, I didn't notice. — ] (]) 16:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Nug is pushing a POV for which he can't get consensus , in this case pushing a map of the wrong language family . Per BOLD, he should take his suggestions to talk rather than edit warring over them.
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

	BTW, the map in question cites its authors , so Nug changing it to better support his POV is fraud – assuming he knows what he's doing . — ] (]) 07:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Nug has violated the principle of ]. Rather than being bold, being reverted, then proceeding to the Talk Page to build a consensus for his/her preferred map, s/he simply proceeded to edit war over the map, continually replacing his/her map rather than building a consensus on the Talk Page before touching the actual article again. Rather than trying to ram his/her new map through, s/he should have been presenting the proposed map on the Talk Page, discussing it, then abandoning it if a consensus could not be reached. The real edit warrior in this case is Nug, who was unable to build a consensus for his/her new map, not Kwami, who was simply insisting that Nug follow the principle of ]. --] (]) 09:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	*I'm seeing edit warring here from both parties. Nug may not have technically violated 3RR, but that's no excuse, and I see no grounds for a block of one party here. So should I block both or none? ] ] 10:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	**Map being discussed, warring hasn't continued, I see no point in blocking either. — ] (]) 10:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|d}} because of what Lfdder says; it's a downright bad idea to block people who are discussing and who aren't editwarring anymore. ] (]) 13:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	**Indeed, my question was more of a rhetorical "is there going to be more edit warring necessitating blocks?" ] ] 13:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] and ]
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Falafel}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|87.68.144.122}}

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
	;Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|573795505\|16:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Israel national dish."
			:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|573800716\|17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Israel's national food"
	# {{diff2\|573802727\|17:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Israel"
	# {{diff2\|573904121\|12:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Israel"

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	#
	# {{diff2\|573803354\|17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]. (])"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Grail Movement}}
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Folawiki}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Note that this article is subject to 1RR. ] (]) 14:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1265465790\|02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1265465049\|02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265464033\|02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265459461\|01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
			# {{diff2\|1265461000\|01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1265464521\|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* December 2024 */ ] notice"
			# {{diff2\|1265464576\|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1265465123\|02:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Syrian civil war infobox}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1265464764\|02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "{{re\|Folawiki}} The whitewashing has to stop. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|FutureTrillionaire}}

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

			Cult whitewashing. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# Retracted

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

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TheHappiestEditor}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<s>The article is on a 1RR restriction per 24 hours. He reverted the "mujahideen" bit twice within 12 hours.</s> ] ] 15:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Opps. I wasn't counting. I've now reverted my edit. Come on. Let's discuss this at the talk page. ]--] (]) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:: I have retracted my post in light of the self-revertion by FutureTrillionaire. ] ] 15:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::'''Result:''' No action taken since FT reverted his change. Editors are now trying to find agreement on the talk page. ] (]) 16:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	==] reported by ] (Result: Protected)==
			# {{diff2\|1265432813\|22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
			# {{diff2\|1265165246\|13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."

			*Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Syrian civil war infobox}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Pass a Method}}
			#
			#

			#
	<!-- 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. -->

			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	<!-- 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. -->
			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# - putting fake sources/infomation

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# < This diff consists of two reverts.
			#

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	The first reverts Future's edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&diff=573721775&oldid=573698751

	The second reverts my edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&diff=573790858&oldid=573782806

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	] (]) 15:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	*striked out as I assume pass a method has retracted his report on Futuretrillionaire. ] (]) 15:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	<s>:*'''Result:''' No action. ] (]) 16:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)</s>. See below.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
	'''Update''': It appears that Pass a Method, has made two reverts with in 24 hours: . In both cases, he readded "Sunni Majahideen", even though discussion of this issue is still ongoing.--] (]) 17:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Reply''' See Edjohnston's talk page, where he stated that it is not considered a revert. Also, i moved it two lines down. ] ] 17:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::You removed content I added, regardless of how visible it was. Thats a revert. ] (]) 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	'''Result:''' Template '''protected''' three days. The editors here are well-informed and they are perfectly capable of discussion. Please use the next three days to get consensus on the talk page. So far on 22 September there have been six reverts; there is no excuse for that. ] (]) 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

	~~== ]~~ reported ~~by ] (Result: ) ==~~		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|103.84.130.238}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Eurofighter Typhoon}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Z07x10}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262480024\|diff=1265542339\|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1265541681\|12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1265542339\|12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia "
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

	;Diffs of ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			#
	# {{diff2\|574089580\|20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)}} "You ought to have read the talk page and realised that there is. Also see German wiki who agree. Furthermore the matter is currently in dispute resolution so you shouldn't be making reverts until that process has been conducted."
			#
	# {{diff2\|574082583\|19:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 574082173 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|574080098\|19:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|574066301\|17:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff\|oldid=574015331\|diff=574027703\|label=Consecutive edits made from 10:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) to 10:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|574027424\|10:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Reverted Mach to Mach 2.35 because of change that lacked consensus."
	## {{diff2\|574027703\|10:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)}} "Re-inserted reliable sources. Haynes is not a reliable source for anything other than car maintenance instructions."

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ / ~~3RR~~ ~~warning~~:		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	See ]

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

			Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	Repeatedly making changes that lack support on the talk page. As seen both on the talk page of the article and by the fact that the user's five reverts within the past 24h have been reverted by five different users. ] ] 20:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
			:The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a warning, but was to report it here. - ] (]) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:*The user has now made '''five''' reverts within 24h. I can add that I made my revert well '''before''' the case was filed at the dispute resolution board, while Z07x10's latest revert was made '''after''' he filed the case. ] ] 20:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC) <br/>

	:This is a gross misrepresentation of facts and if you'd bothered to read through the Talk Page, you'd realise that the changes were agreed with Bushranger and Julian H before McSly edit-warred the issue a month later and then again another month later. Bushranger is just sick of dealing with it now so refuses to get involved. Up to the point where admins became involved I made 1 change for every change he made to reflect the standing consensus. I don't feel I should be singled out just because of a 24hr timing issue. I have raised the matter in Dispute resolution and on Policy. Furthermore my stance on the issue (maximum speed Mach 2.35) is in line with an independent consensus by German Wiki ('3O'), so it'll look a little stupid if two parts of Wiki list contradictory information. https://de.wikipedia.org/Eurofighter_Typhoon I therefore move that the page should, by right, be protected at Mach 2.35 until resolved. Cheers.] (]) 20:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::A) It's '''not''' a gross misrepresentation. I can't find a consensus supporting your views on the talk page, and your five reverts have been reverted by five different editors. Which ought to tell you something. <br/>
	::B) It doesn't matter what it says on the German WP or what consensus they reach, each WP is independent of all others.<br/>
	::C) You made '''four''' reverts before filing a case at the dispute resolution board, and then a fifth revert after that in an attempt to have '''your''' version "frozen". Which is '''not''' the way to do things. And filing a case at the dispute resolution board does not absolve you from the edit warring charges.<br/>
	::] ] 21:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I agree with ] ] (]) 05:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

	User Corbynz has been removing sourced information(mostly work by historians and scholarly books) about history of Masuria,mainly abuses by German authorities regarding pro-Polish site in plebiscite about future of the region, this has been done without any discussion at all, and included ethnic based attacks such statements that he is removing "Polish propaganda".

	<!-- 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:

	'''---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'''

	'''This article contains unsubstantiated claims and propaganda. The warning that was posted in the heading last year is both correct and highly appropriate.'''
	''"This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2012")</i> The sources quoted are predominantly Polish and are based upon rationalisations to justify the expulsions of the Germans between 1945 - 1947.''

	I concur entirely with the comments made by Filipcyk on the Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Masuria

	'''Personal family history that may shed light on whether Masurens considered themselves German or Polish'''

	''There is much discussion on this page about whether the results of the referendum in Masuria after World War I to determine the wishes of the population to be a part of Poland or Germany were affected by the fact that Poland and the Soviet Union were at war and by the fact that perhaps much of the population thought they were voting to be a part of Prussia, but not Germany. I am not a historian and do not believe I am qualified to contribute to any article in Misplaced Pages. I am writing this to provide additional information to those who are so that it may help them. My grandfather and mother were masurisch. Like many masurisch, they had German first names and slavik sounding surnames. For example, my grandfather's name was Johann Filipcyk. Based on conversations with my family, masurisch people were almost exclusively Lutherans. Perhaps for that reason, their culture was very German and they very much identified with and considered themselves Germans. My grandfather was a German soldier during World War I. My grandmother and her children, including my father who was a child at the time, were at one point refugees fleeing the Russians during the first battle of Tannenberg during World War I. My family and other masurisch friends of the family always without question considered themselves to be Germans, and nothing else. They would be shocked if anyone would suggest otherwise. I realize this is just one personal experience and I have no way of knowing what the total population was thinking on the ground in Masuria in 1920. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipcyk (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)''

	Like him I come from a Masuren family who lived in Kreis Johannisburg (Pisz) for over 600 years. I have their records and my Grandparents and other relatives were there during the plebiscite after World War 1 and the allegations of so-called widespread intimidation by "the Germans" are nonsense. Most Masurens were Lutheran and culturally German even if they had mixed German, Polish and Old Prussian ancestry. The fact of the matter is that 99% of the Masuren population voted to remain as part of Germany because that is what they wanted and no end of Polish propaganda can change that. I also had family still living there in 1945 and they were expelled west of the Oder-Neisse river by the invading Russians and resettled Poles. For this contributor to claim that totally unbalanced and biased Polish propaganda is a substantive source is utterly ludicrous. ]
	'''-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'''

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

	I have largely expanded the article over the years with valuable material and noticed that this is being removed without discussion and using dubious motivation(statements "removing Polish propaganda" seem to indicate high bias based on ethnic grounds).I have asked the use in my comment to stop removing sourced information to which the only response was that he is removing "Polish propaganda". Another user has been trying to engage him on talk-without success.
	--] (]) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ludwig von Mises Institute}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Srich32977}}

	<!-- 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:

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Rich is very familiar with ] (see above), so this is not an innocent mistake. ] (]) 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

	: '''Response''': In order of the diffs posted, here is explanation:
	* Diff "previous version" (37) gives the difference between 6 intermediate revisions.
	* First Diff (38) is my correction of a broken link & converting data to a template webcite.
	* Second Diff (39) preceded 37, but restored much material removed in violation of ]. E.g., sourced material, categories, proper formatting, etc.
	* Third Diff (40) preceded 37, and added the actual title of a journal article, the journal name, particular page #s, and date of cited journal.
	* Fourth Diff (41) added the headcount of the faculty at LvMI (At this diff SPECIFICO had removed the number of "adjunct faculty" at LvMI. My edit provided another number plus a citation to verify the number.)
	* Warning (42) is MilesMoney's template message on my talk page.
	* Diff "Attempt to resolve dispute" (43) is MilesMoney's response on the article talk page to a thread I posted about the unjustified removal of {{tl\|SPS}} tags (the subject of which are under discussion on the RSN). It has nothing to do with any of the edits above.
	* Alas – ] (]) 22:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

	::I can't speak to Srich's entire list, but he seems to be asking for a pass because "he's right" and others are wrong. Srich's interpretations of policy are dubious and he tends to insist on his interpretations even when others explicitly explain their disagreements to him. Such was the case with various of his recent reverts. I was not involved in most of this matter, but I can say that Srich's re-insertion of the term "adjunct faculty" after I removed the term "faculty" (explaining in my edit comment not that the number was incorrect but rather that this characterization "faculty" is not supported by secondary RS) should not give Srich an exemption from 3RR. I have, to my dismay, noticed that Srich has been unduly aggressive over the past four to six weeks in undoing good faith reverts of other editors with whom he may disagree. Rather than open a discussion, he re-reverts first and then waits until he's challenged before acknowledging other editors' concerns. He has been warned repeatedly about this behavior by various involved editors and at least one Admin. Srich is quick to bring or threaten complaints against others. ]] 22:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Specifico has his facts backwards. He removed "adjunct faculty" and I used the term "faculty", based on the RS supplied, when adding new information. (Either way, secondary RS is not required as to that particular fact because LvMI is sufficiently reliable to report the number.) I've made ''one'' user noticeboard report as to MilesMoney – and it was done after MilesMoney rejected my message about disruptive edits at ]. Specifico won't address the particulars on ''MilesMoney's'' list, but is quick to bring up unspecified matters and baseless warnings. Jeez, why am I responding to these absurd non-3RR comments? Perhaps because my integrity and good faith is repeatedly attacked. – ] (]) 23:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::This is not the place for Srich to litigate his disputes concerning article content and sources. The fact that he's trying to "win" that dispute here, as if that would excuse his edit-warring, is very disappointing. As Srich knows, I challenged whether the LvMI website's self-description of its employees as "faculty" is RS, given that it is not a school or accredited educational institution. Regardless of which view is correct, Srich's disagreement with me does not justify his edit-warring and his assertion of his viewpoint as fact is the sort of behavior which 3RR is intended to prevent. ]] 00:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, the article talk page is where content debate goes. This is for dealing with Rich's edit-warring, not his POV-pushing or incivility. ] (]) 00:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	* has nothing to do with reversion; it is instead a small step toward building the article by fleshing out a citation. also is fleshing out a citation (a different one), something that nobody is arguing against. There are disputes at the article but diffs 1 and 3 are not part of the disputes. This 3RRN submission fails to prove its point. ] (]) 01:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:: Bink, I am concerned about your ] in evaluating questions of edit warring. For instance, you recently claimed I was engaged in an "ongoing" "edit warring" on Hanns Hoppe () when in fact I had made a total of 1 revert within several weeks (at the time of your complaint). Given your erroneous statements there and here, I encourage you to focus on building your ] prior to participating in these discussions regarding 3RR/editing warring generally. ] (]) 02:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::<s>Specifico</s> Steeletrap, every time you point me to the ] essay it signals that you have run out of better arguments. ] (]) 02:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Diff 3 is Srich removing the disputed word "polemecist" -- which both Binksernet and Srich have taken turns warring out of the article text. I'm not familiar with the other, but contrary to the above, #3 is certain a reversion. ]] 01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::The prior version in Diff 3 took one word from the article and posted it as if it were the title of the piece. My revision provided the proper title of the Boettke article, plus more citation data. In this regard, the revert promoted NPOV.
	:::Specifico has made a point about the usage of the term faculty in the infobox. (And as far as I can tell, this revert is part of MilesMoney's complaint.) I have opened a BRD on the article page about the use of the term. – ] (]) 01:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Srich, the purpose of this noticeboard is not to litigate your content disputes, nor for you to make a series of excuses for your 3RR violation. ]] 02:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::How does a BRD now make up for the 3RR violation? Oh, look over there!!! SHINY!!!!!! ] (]) 02:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Specifico, the diff 3 action is not removing article text at all. It is instead fleshing out a citation which was poorly composed in the first place. Nobody at the article is arguing whether the citation should be fully fleshed out versus poorly composed. The word "polemicist" was serving in place of the title of the citation but the cited source did not use that word as the title. The cited source used "Economists and Liberty: Murray N. Rothbard". Again, nobody is arguing that the title of Boettke's paper is really "Polemicist". ] (]) 02:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::The purpose of this board is not to try out various excuses after having edit-warred, is it Bink? I think that's the 3rd time I've said that here, so I am done. ]] 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::The purpose of this board is to deal with edit warring behavior. Toward that end, the submission of evidence is expected to show a violation of 3RR or long-term edit warring behavior. This one fails in its attempt to show a 3RR violation, and it does not even try to show long-term edit warring. Srich is building the article, not warring. If MilesMoney tried to show long-term edit warring the ] would be whistling back in his direction. ] (]) 03:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{AN3\|nv}} As far as I can tell the only clear cut revert is diff 2. Diff 1 is putting an html link into a cite web template, and I can't see how it could be called a revert since there was no substantive change. (I actually tried to find what it could be a revert of but came up empty.) Diff 3 might be considered a revert if you're counting that the word "polemicist" was removed, but that would be a stretch, since it is just another html link being put into a citation template, and "polemicist" was not the title of the linked page. Diff 4 can be considered a partial revert of Specifico's edit. That said, this is the second time this crowd has been here for the same article, and I strongly advise all parties to tread carefully until the dispute is resolved. I will be putting this article on my watchlist, and I don't want to have to shut down editing for everyone with a gold-lock. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 05:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Turkish people}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Athenean}}

	<!-- 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: Complex case, but is mainly about the deletion of material in this section ].

	Athenean does not participate in talk page discussion, unless right before or right after a revert. Pretty much most of his recent contributions are reverts (in other pages too) . He seems to want an edit-warring conflict.

	<!-- 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:
	*1.
	*2.
	*3.
	::After this revert, I tried to solve the issues in the talk page. Athenean ignores the discussion, except his posts right after the revert. Without any response I make this edit . Barely an hour later, Athenean reverts.
	*4.
	::Since that date, extensive discussion has taken place in the talk page, including me posting bunch of sources . I have made this change . Despite being absent from ] or ] since 17:32, 5 September 2013, Athenean reverted barely 30 minutes after my edit.

	*5.
	*6.

	This seems like a disruptive editing pattern, and edit warring. He also filed a Good Article Reassessment amid edit warring , even though he was warned in the article talk page that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate"

	<!-- 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: Athenean is well aware of consequences of edit-warring, since he was blocked for it various times . He is also well aware of it with respect to ] page, given that he posted the 3RR template on my talk page himself. .</br>
	Further warnings I posted on his 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: Extensive discussions in ]. Also here, which Athenean did not participate: ].

	:Frivolous bad-faith request by User:Cavann, who is the prime edit-warrior in this article (count 'em!). In fact I have only 4 reverts in this article in September, while he has accumulated almost a dozen. He displays clear ] behavior regarding this article (hence his revert warring), and is desperate to have me blocked so that he can get away with his POV-pushing. In his desperation, he resorts to all kinds of dirty tricks, such as bringing up my past history (even though I haven't been blocked for edit-warring in over 3 years now), mischaracterizing my edits as reverts even though they are not, bringing up edits from '''last month''', and outright lies (about me not participating in the talkpage even though I am the one who has opened the discussion thread ). He is arrogant, belligerent and contemptuous towards other users in the talkpage, and has been repeatedly warned for this . Regarding the GAR, "''If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.''", enough said. ] (]) 22:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::You opened the discussion thread right after your revert. You say nothing in the talk page for 17 days (even tho you were active in Misplaced Pages), and then miraculously appear and revert 30 min after my edit, and then start a discussion thread in the talk page. This is disruptive. ] (]) 22:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

	:::All my reverts are accompanied by talkpage posts. There is nothing "disruptive" about that. In fact the opposite. When I don't edit the article (and I haven't been very active this month for RL reasons), I don't edit the talkpage. I am not obligated to participate in discussions when I am not reverting or editing at all. Your understanding of "disruptive" needs re-calibration, e.g. by looking in the mirror. ] (]) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

	::::As I said, this is the problem. You only participate in discussion right before or after a revert. I have waited 17 days in the talk page for more of your input, yet you returned 30 min after my edit to revert. ] (]) 23:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

	:::::Actually, after this edit , which, for once, you did not revert, I was under the impression that we had reached an understanding. Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong, as today you resumed your Anatolianist POV-pushing with full force. Your dispute with Alexikoua regarding page numbers, I was not involved in, and did not feel like getting involved, nor was I under any obligation to do so. The only "problem" here is your ] and ] behavior, and the edit-warring and arrogant, abrasive attitude that accompany it. ] (]) 23:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::After you removed "material sourced to backpacker guidebooks," I came with journal articles and an Oxford Handbook, which was quickly reverted again. Please do not fake an "understanding," I was very clear in the talk page, , which was ignored. ] (]) 23:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

	:::::::I hadn't seen this , and you didn't revert (amazingly), so I took as a sign that for once you had finally understood the point and backed down. You seem to think you can add all kinds of irrelevant stuff to an article just because it sourced, but it doesn't work that way.

	:::::::Also very interesting you filed this report not after my last revert to the article, but after I filed the GAR (which you made sure to mention here, even though I am well within my rights to file a GAR). Proof that this is a frivolous report filed purely out of spite and retaliatory intent. Unsurprising, since you have been edit-warring on this article more than everyone else combined. If anyone should be blocked, it is you. ] (]) 01:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

Latest revision as of 14:44, 27 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

@Napoleonjosephine2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(second IP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

ChasePlowman2014 is completely unresponsive. I hope they try editing during the 2 weeks of their block and notice that they have a talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

It's me @Callmehelper.

Clarification by my side ;

Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.

Disputes details ;

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

- 1st Revert My response then again revert and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes see then i thought matter would be solved.
But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement see and my response of revert here and discussion on his talk page here

Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there see

Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk here but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Request_for_Administrator Review_of_Recent_Edits_on_Dr. B.R._Ambedkar's_Page

So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.

the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under WP:UNDUE or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.

so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .

Conclusion

So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.

Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.

i left a discussion on Ambedkar Jayanti page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources look.

I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.

I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.

Much Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Declined Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265170057 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."

Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

Categories: