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 19:32, 13 October 2013 editMark Arsten (talk \| contribs)131,188 edits →User:IrishStephen reported by User:Srich32977 (Result: ): *{{AN3\|pe}} ~~~~← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:46, 24 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,267 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive490) (bot
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 = ~~225~~		\|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: Stale) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PaleoFile}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Students for Justice in Palestine}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sepsis II}}

			'''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 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: (page subject to 1RR)
	#
	#

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	All pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation. Sepsis is well aware of this, having been repeatedly warned about it, and blocked twice for previous violations:
	* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AStudents_for_Justice_in_Palestine&diff=576210766&oldid=551987158
	* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASepsis_II&diff=523501541&oldid=523439274
	* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASepsis_II&diff=523516608&oldid=523505411 - this one is a finding by an administrator of a previous 1RR violation

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	Ya, this is a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim, or perhaps NoCal, I've already gone ahead and made the SPI - ]. These two sockpuppeters have been hounding me for a long time now, I asked Sandstein for advice in dealing with them, he said reverting these extremely obvious sockpuppets of banned users falls under ] - ]. Anyone who reads the history of the article will see multiple sockpuppets recently editing it, Jennifer Worth , Firkin Flying Fox, GoGoTob2, Scarletfire2112/Soosim.... I will wait to revert these socks edits on the many pages they have attacked until they are confirmed/blocked. Thanks, ] (]) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked 48 hours) ==
	'''Comment''' - I don't think AndresHerutJaim would bother filing an edit warring report. Firkin Flying Fox is probably the same obvious sockpuppet that filed ]. Isarig/NoCal is the kind of person who is capable of exploiting rules to target perceived opponents, while simultaneously breaking the rules themselves. They have done it many times over the years. So this looks much more like NoCal than AHJ to me, for what it's worth. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Thank you for providing link to previous report, Sean. It appears Sepsis II was already and aware of RR rules, thus escalating block appears appropriate. ] (]) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Agada will join any discussion going on, always in support of the pro-Israel extremists, even those who are banned sockmasters, six time indef blocked editors, etc. He should be ignored, perhaps his ban from joining in such discussions should be put back into force again. ] (]) 23:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Robert de Quincy}} <br />
	::Agada, I can see that might look appropriate if the objective is to unethically exploit a charity to wage a pointless and disruptive ethno-nationalist information war and to facilitate and reward sockpuppetry. To me, that approach looks more like throwing fuel on the fire rather than trying to put it out. Protecting the article seems like a better approach. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 02:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Pipera}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:::I'm sorry guys, this sounds like ]. Editors should be reminded about ]. Sepsis II broke the rules and no doubt she/he was aware of it. Rules are rules and should be applied equally. ] (]) 05:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	::::Sepsis II can simply self-revert, but curiously no one has asked him, so this is obviously not about the rules, it's about gaming to target a perceived enemy in a conflict that has nothing to do with this charity. It should be about minimizing the disruptive impact of manipulative and dishonest people on the project. It's profoundly dumb and counterproductive to reward those people for their lack of ethics and the enormous amount of disruption and conflict they cause. This has nothing whatsoever to do with POV. It's about using judgement, not allowing procedures to be contaminated and exploited by people fighting an information war and trying to stem the negative effects of sockpuppetry. I haven't even looked at what these guys are fighting about, I'm not interested. I've never even read the article. What is obvious is that almost every recent edit is by a sockpuppet, sockpuppets on both sides of the conflict. Sepsis II also has an outstanding issue regarding former accounts that is, no doubt, feeding the flames, that I described ]. Either way, block evading socks are not allowed to be here and they are not allowed to do anything at all. This is not a difficult concept to understand and yet, astonishingly, time and time again, people facilitate and encourage block evasion despite the enormous cost to the project. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 08:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
			#
	:::::No, Sean. This '''is''' about rules and proper procedures. An editor can not revert edits he/she ''thinks'' were made by sock. If sock suspicion arises, ] is the proper venue and an investigation should be initiated. After the suspicion is confirmed, then, the ''known'' sock edits are to be reverted. Let's examine Sepisis II actions:
			#
	::::: * Adds the identical content three times
			#
	::::: * Does not take part in discussion of talk page
			#
	::::: * Does not even consider to self revert
			#
	:::::This noticeboard is about edit-warring I did not look into content dispute in hand. I am concerned about proper procedures to avoid yonder disruption. And after two blocks for identical reason '1RR violation' I don't see what is the alternative here. ] (]) 02:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*{{AN3\|s}} ] (]) 04:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ,
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 36 hours) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Soylent Green}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny Squeaky}}

			<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. -->

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

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale; content removed) ==
	<!-- 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 -->
	Second version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sigma Boy}} <br />
	<!-- 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. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:14C:BBE7:44CE:B8E5:FEDB:67F5:D84D}}
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	# and calling my good-faith revert "vandalism". ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 01:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Johnny hasn't violated 3RR, but his edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. The first set of edits related to a section which he regarded as trivia and wanted to label as such. The to facilitate discussion, which ended up being quite comprehensive. Some of us felt he had a point and that the section violated ], and there was a suggestion to delete the section and simply add a link to the "See also" section. This proposal received consensus at ] including support from Johnny. However, once it was enacted he reneged on the agreement and started removing the link from "See also" (the second set of edits). If he genuninely objected to this proposal he should have spoken up, rather than supporting it so the discussion was closed under the impression that all parties were satisfied. ] (]) 07:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I don't have time to evaluate this now. As Betty said above, I locked the article at the end of September. That was based on a previous report here. For the benefit of other admins, I wanted to add (before I go to my real work) that I warned Johnny at the time. That warning, which Johnny removed (he pretty much removes everything from his talk page), is .--] (]) 12:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	I would add that after Johnny location that he felt the external link wasn't pertinent to the article even after discussion had run its course and a consensus had been reached, that consensus had been reached on the options, that he could have added his idea as one of the options, and that he was welcome to open a new discussion if he wished to do so. ] (]) 13:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Overuse of the "minor edit" marking doesn't help. - ] (]) 23:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}} - edit warring against a multitude of users. ] (]<small> • </small>]) 10:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Temporary semi-protection/IPs blocked) ==

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Espresso}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|92.145.77.139}}
	;Sock: {{userlinks\|92.145.197.216}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|576599790\|15:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576471024 by Yworo (talk) wow, this is fun. looking for another block then?" Through sock IP 92.145.197.216
	# {{diff2\|576457263\|16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)}} "(1) discussed ad nauseum on Talk (I was one of those engaged in the discussion over a year ago); (2) reasoning explained countless times; (3) consult any dictionary"
	# {{diff2\|576189237\|20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)}} "if you want to have a discussion, i'm all ears. otherwise, cease."
	# {{diff2\|576187718\|19:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576187287 by ] (]) see Talk, you're in the minority. And please stop posting me personal messages. thanks."
	# {{diff2\|576185909\|19:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)}} "NOT a misspelling - appears in numerous dictionaries - see discussion page for enormous amount of sources (like the Oxford English Dictionary)"
	# {{diff2\|576183463\|19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)}} "see talk"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			If the IP reverts one more time, could someone please block them and revert their nonsensical edit? (Okay, maybe it's not "nonsensical", but it's incorrect.) ] (]) 02:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	* due to edit-warring on the same article. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|s}}; content removed until a consensus is found ] (]) 13:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lindy Li}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Napoleonjosephine2020}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Please note: This is not a 3RR violation technically. Rather this is a continuation of the edit-war this IP was blocked for a few days ago. Right after their block expired, the IP started the same edit-war they got blocked for in the first place. The IP refuses to engage on talk and instead reverts insinuating in their edit summaries that other editors don't understand linguistics etc.. Another admin has already warned the IP for starting the edit-war again: I think that the IP should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Thank you. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#

	I am also concerned about the cavalier attitude of the IP. : {{xt\|rough day at the office? don't worry, we've all been there. have a camomile tea (not an eXpresso!) and watch some of your favorite soaps.}} Please note how they capitalised "X" in "Expresso", the main object of their edit-warring. That kind of sarcastic, battleground mentality doesn't bode well for the future, imo. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	:*As the IP is dynamic, I have semi-protected the article temporarily. Bishonen has blocked the IPs. ] (]) 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	::*Yeah, I was also just going to report here. Both IPs blocked for 72 hours. Not sure what good it'll do, but the range is unfortunately too big to block. (The IPs are supposed to be static, per whatismyipaddress.com, but it don't look much like it, does it?) ] \| ] 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC).
	:::By the end of this, the IP was just trolling and socking. Thank you very much DrKiernan, Bishonen. Best regards. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|K-pop}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|175.143.208.159}}

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff\|oldid=576217641\|diff=576219123\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC) to 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|576218613\|00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|576219123\|00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|576217193\|00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

			: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)
			::@]
			::"This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand ] and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. ] • ] • ] 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. ] (]) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. ] • ] • ] 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). , for those curious. ] (]) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
	Frequent attempts to add an unsourced section to this page, all consistently rejected by editors and reviewers. User has been warned. {<sub>]</sub> <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;">]</span><sup>]</sup>} 02:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] (]<small> • </small>]) 10:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Six-star rank}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Pdfpdf}}
			#
			#
			# (second IP)

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

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# 1st revert (reverts )
	# 2nd revert
	# 3rd revert with an unwarranted and insupportable accusation of vandalism.
	# 1st revert
	# 2nd revert
	# 3rd revert

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , ], ]

			'''Diff of 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> <br />

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	This is nonsense. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin to collaborate - he refuses. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin to discuss the issues - he refuses. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin to communicate - he refuses. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin for his opinions - he has not replied. I have made <u>repeated</u> requests to this admin to explain certain matters - he has not replied.<br>
	Occasionally he replies, "I have replied", but when I ask where he has replied, he does not respond.<br>
	This appears to be an example of an admin throwing his weight around and misusing his position. He is equally guilty of anything he's accusing me of.<br>
	Further, I continue to draw to his attention 3 years of discussion and consensus, which he continues to dismiss as irrelevant.<br>
	How can you communicate with someone who pays no attention to any POV than his own? ] (]) 11:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	By-the-way:
			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)
	* ''Warn the user if you have not already done so.'' - He hasn't.
	* ''You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?'' - No, he hasn't. He refuses to discuss the matter.
	* "So put a link to the discussion here.'' - No discussion, so there can not be / is not any link.
	* ''If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too'' - Yes, that's all he's done, but I don't want him blocked. I've made numerous attempts to get him to collaborate - clearly, he has skills and experience I don't have (And I have skills and experience he doesn't have). Collaboration would be a far superior outcome for Misplaced Pages.] (]) 11:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

	::The claims in the response are obviously untrue, as demonstrated by the links in the report. ] (]) 13:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::This matter has already been discussed at ], where it seems that ] has not found support for his views. His continued reverts at ] appear to be edit warring. He may be able to avoid sanctions if he will respond here and agree to wait for consensus before editing the article again. ] (]) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Having reviewed the page history, discussion history at the various pages, and the editor's block log, my suggestion is a block of at least 48 hours absent a material commitment to avoid edit warring (and ideally, to accept a form of dispute resolution such as DRN.) —] (]) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	::::I've just received some aggressive comments ] after ] of ]'s conduct during the resolution of this issue. Apart from anything else, they demonstrate that ] still doesn't understand either why his edit warring was wrong or how to behave in resolving a dispute. ] (]) 16:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' Warned. Since the dispute has been running it qualifies as a case of long-term edit warring. Pdfpdf is warned that any further revert on the topic of the six-star rank may lead to an immediate block if he doesn't get consensus first. ] (]) 17:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Samsung Galaxy Note 3}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Ausgoth}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|576567006\|10:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "inadequate reverts"
	# {{diff2\|576564472\|09:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "who does not like grammar and commas - fix it, do not remove useful information"
	# {{diff2\|576561894\|09:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "restored useful information after vandalism"
	# {{diff2\|576454302\|15:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)}} "unreasonable revert Undid revision 576452613 by ] (])"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|576452711\|15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)}} "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style). (])"
	# {{diff2\|576597978\|15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Constantly re-introduces a version which unnecessarily adds uncited model numbers, changes certain sentences to grammatically incorrect versions, adds a spammy looking ref, and edit wars his version back in by asserting that the reversions are vandalism and that we shouldn't care about the grammar if its "useful information" <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 15:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ''']]''' 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Acid Rap}}, {{pagelinks\|Acid Rap (mixtape)}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ben0kto}}

	<!-- 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> Ok... this is going to be a long story I hope to make short. Ultimately this is the same instance that was reported by another user . The editor in question, Ben0kto, has been warned about edit warring over Acid Rap. He was blocked for a short period of time due to edit warring. After his block was up, he continued to edit war and he continued to try to move the album to another article so he could create an article on the music genre of acid rap. He has been warned several times and he claims that he has not been completely warned about everything that is happening, but the problem is that I don't know how much more explicit we can get over everything. I've also reported this to ANI, but I'm reporting this here as well. I have to say that at this point I don't see inexperience as an excuse since he's well aware that his edits are controversial and people have tried to explain things to him. ]] 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC) <br />

	*Seems pretty clear cut. ] (]) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	== ] / ] reported by ] (Result:31 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Dick Dale}} <br />
	'''User being reported:'''
	*{{userlinks\|ReadTheGuidelines}} / previously editing as:
	*{{iplinks\|24.121.103.74}}

	<!-- 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: See AN/I report at

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Note the AN/I report linked above, and : '''" You can block me if you want to, because I will continue to delete my comments."'''. ] (])
	:Blocked 31 hours by GB fan. ] (]) 02:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Hyderabad State}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Devanampriya}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff\|oldid=576300078\|diff=576664880\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC) to 01:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|576663453\|00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "restored sourced information that was deleted without explanation. npov required for articles"
	## {{diff2\|576664880\|01:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Restored neutral language to paragraph. Important for readers to understand context of allegations."
	# {{diff2\|576666638\|01:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "RV - Neil N unexplained section blanking is vandalism. My edits are NPOV. Restoring version prior to AJillani's unexplained section blanking. Please discuss issues on Talk page."
	# {{diff2\|576668245\|01:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "restored original title prior to sectional blanker's pov edit. This will head off inevitable "annexation" vs "liberation" edit war. more than 80% of native population wanted merger w/India."
	# {{diff2\|576681651\|04:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "in line with talk discussion, reworded original text from "countless" to "unknown number". This is reword edit responding to other opinions."
	# {{diff2\|576686639\|06:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Abecedare, please speak the truth. My edit was not a revert so no 3RR violation. I clearly reworded and proposed new text. Propose changes, don't dictate. Here is new proposed text. Pls respond with modification and explain issues on talk pg"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|576668197\|01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Notice: Misidentifying edits as vandalism on ]. using ]"
	# {{diff2\|576668391\|01:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. using ]"
	# {{diff2\|576682478\|04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */ cmt"
	# {{diff2\|576684302\|05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|576668587\|01:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"
	# {{diff2\|576671600\|02:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"
	# {{diff2\|576674274\|02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */ note"
	# {{diff2\|576680359\|04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"
	# {{diff2\|576682478\|04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */ cmt"
	# {{diff2\|576684302\|05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Hyderabad State */"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Edit warring to add POV text. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	User, NeilN refused to discuss content in detail and merely reverted my sourced edits. What he calls a 3RR violation was actually my proposed reword of my own text in response to another user's concern on the talk page. His one line responses to my repeated requests for detailed discussion are seen . This request is an attempt to distract from an edit war that he (NeilN) himself started. ] (]) 04:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I and another editor told you exactly what the problems were. Instead of using the talk page, you continue to add the '''same''' problematic text to the article. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	:::No, you have to suggest changes. You can't just lay down a subjective standard of what's wrong without explaining the changes you would like to see. Have you even done any research on the topic? Do you even know anything about it? How can you critique my edits without properly understanding the content?

	:::Also, what you said is completely false. I have clearly "reworded" my edited (which you wrongly call 3RR vio) responding to another users concerns. Second, it was I who created the talk section while you insisted on edit warring, and . Abecedare gave some explantion, you just gave a glib one liner speaking in vague terms and issuing threats. Responsible and scholarly editing means proposing a counter-version inclusive of new content. You knee jerked deleted new content from reliable sources. This is blanking.

	:::Admin involvement is requested so as to encourage all involved editors to contribute content or '''at least propose an inclusive revision''' rather than holding text hostage. ] (]) 05:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Anyone can see the identical text in the diffs I provided. The same text I '''first''' raised with you on your talk page (which you ''then'' copied to the article talk page). The same text I gave suggestions on how to change, multiple times. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	::::::Nope--speak the truth. You yourself just said this on the talk page:

	::::::So you yourself admitted I modified my own text instead of knee jerk reverting--which you've been doing from the beginning. I have made good faith modification to my own researched contributions, but neither you nor Abecedare have provided anything. Do you even have any understanding of the Article topic? The BRD policy stipulates you have to make your own modification so as to not WP: DICTATE. If you are interested in improving the article, modify rather than make false 3RR violation complaints you yourself have contradicted. ] (]) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


	'''Update:''' After the 3RR had been formally breached by Devanampriya I had left on the article talk page noting the breach and mentioning that I didn't intend to report it unless the edit-warring it continued. Given that Devanampriya has ignored that message and repeated requests to propose text on the article talk page to gain consensus; ; and used the article for his non-neutrally worded edits, I think a block and a 1RR restriction is required to prevent article-space disruption. ] (]) 06:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	:::::::'''There was no formal breach, you are mischaracterizing it.''' NeilN has plainly admitted that I made a '''modification''' to the text--which is not a revert. In contrast, both you and NeilN have been knee jerk reverting without making modifications to the text. Merely proposing vague "overhauling" is not collaborating--it is dictating. And insisting on talk page versions first contravenes wikipedia's own policy for BRD.

	:::::::''What have you contributed to the text?'' Article talk has clearly shown only I have been researching and making suggestions. You are attempting to hold the collaboration process hostage to your own vague whims. If you have anything to contribute, ''refine the text or add your own content''--you have done neither and are trying to hide by a trumped up 3RR report and desired block so you keep out content you dislike. ] (]) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::From ]: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." - You added "The Muslim militia and Hyderabad state police brutally put down the armed revolts by Communists and the peasantry and committed horrendous atrocities on the Hindu population, and even eliminated patriotic Hyderabadi Muslims such as Shoebullah Khan who advocated merger with India." four times. Changing something else does not get you out of 3RR. And your continued haste to insert problematic material without waiting for discussion shows you are ''still'' edit warring. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 08:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::::No, you are purposefully miscounting, you yourself admitted here: . I modified the specific text you guys had issues with, the word Abecedare specifically called out "countless". This is refinement, not reverting, keeping me within 3 rv, since I specifically addressed one of your concerns. '''Instead of being evasive, why don't you answer the question?''' ''What have you added?''. .

	:::::::::::::::Also you clearly missed that I removed "brutally" in "brutally put down"--so no it wasn't four times, since . ''You specifically requested that I change this--and I did''--but now you try to lie and count that against 3RR. If you spent more time reading and understanding my posts instead of thinking of ways to defend your false 3RR complaint, you would have seen that I specifically brought it to your attention--but neither of you responded or acknowledged this on talk (because you want to hold the text hostage and prevent it from being posted in the first place). This is bad faith. Even now, you don't collaborate, merely drone on about "3RR" and "problematic material". You call the material "problematic" but don't explain why? I directly posted a quotation rather than add my own words in response to your specific request on talk. ''Have you given details on why this is problematic quotation?'' BRD puts the '''onus on you''' to contribute your own refined edits that react to mine (not to edit war) and to provide content where necessary--'''have you done this?''' ] (]) 09:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::::. Why haven't you guys contributed anything in response to my requests? This is a two way street. You have to contribute and collaborate not dictate] (]) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}}.--] (]) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' ] <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{user\|Smauritius}}

	<!-- 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:

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:



	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->I have only added legit links to prove my edit.But the other user seems to be a fanatic and doesn't want to agree with me. She is even making unfounded accusations that I have many user accounts to disprove my claim. I request a third party opinion to verify me edits and make them permanent or give full protection for the page to stop any more edit warring. - ] (]) 04:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	:Smauritius has not been warned for edit warning. Another admin has fully protected the article in question for a week, so I don't see where any sanctions are necessary for edit warring. —''']''' (]) 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:To amend my statement above, an edit summary in the edit war in question is not a sufficient warning of 3RR violation. —''']''' (]) 05:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Actually, Smauritius did get a back on 26 September. Still, the article protection does mean there's no point in blocking now. ] ] 05:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	The link I submitted confirming Shraddha kapoor's birthdate is the contentious issue here. Smauritius is not from India and hence doesn't know about the CINTAA. I request someone who is from India and has knowledge about the film and telly industry located in India to arbitrate and vet my link. I think it is unfair to castigate and write down my link as unreliable when none of you are from my country, India. Some things which are taken for granted here may be new to others abroad. The article has only been protected till 18th OCtober. After that, again the issue will resurface. This must be stopped. Please verify my link and permanently lock the personal details box so that no further changes are made to it. Further I want to bring to your notice here that the user is a fan of shradhha and no edit she makes on the page is unbiased. Please glance through the whole article and notice the discrepancies in language. The whole article reeks of immature editing and bad grammar and wrong lexicon usage. All this has been a result of 's contributions. I request the admins to verify my link and lock the personal details box permanently. Also please ask a proper editor to clean up the article or if I am allowed even I can do the job. Once it is done satisfactorily, it can be permanently protected so that no mroe edit wars happen when fanatics like take issue with the details linked. -] (]) 07:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	I'm providing the following links to substantiate the reliability of the link(http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/4524) I provided on the page os ]. ] doesn't want the age of the actress to be revealed and hence is doing her best to make it seem as though my link is unreliable whereas it is the most legit link any actor can have. Please go through her talk page where other users have also corroborated my information but ] has fought verbally with all of them.

	Please take note of the following:

	CINTAA(http://www.cintaa.net/home) is an association of cine and telly artists in bollywood and membership in it is compulsory for every actor.Read how this actor was reprimanded because he did not have a CINTAA membership-->(http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/ragesh-b-asthanaa-cintaas-hit-list). Also read how CINTAA has the power to pass legislations regarding the Cine industry-->(http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-16/tv/36373471_1_new-rule-cintaa-joint-secretary). Anil Kapoor the actor inaugrated CINTAA's website -->(http://in.movies.yahoo.com/video/anil-launches-website-cintaa-053000873.html).

	All that I've said above can be verified by a knowledgeable third party editor from India.
	] (]) 07:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|pe}} Article locked by Geniac. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Syrian civil war detailed map}}

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

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

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

	Diff 1 <br>
	Diff 2 <br>
	Diff 3 <br>
	Diff 4 <br>
	Diff 5

	Diff of warning (another user had warning before I even noticed the reverts)

	This article is under 1 revert rule restriction, so just two reverts would have been enough. ] (]) 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	:•You should first report yourself dear Sopher99.

	:https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history

	:Diff 1 <br>
	:Diff 2 <br>
	:Diff 3 <br>
	:Diff 4 <br>
	:Diff 5 <br>
	:Diff 6 <br>
	:Diff 7 <br>
	:Diff 8

	:I did the changings for save the map from your classical attemts of vandalism. ] (]) 14:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::What are you talking about? Those diffs show me adding material, not reverting. I don't see how it constitutes as vandalism either. ] (]) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Adding material? Then could you please explain me where is the name of the villages(which you added to the map) on the source? You have been warned numbers of times, it's not your first attempt. Looking over is enough to understend your real purpose. ] (]) 14:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::The source specifically is a bbc map of the conflict. The names of the villages are in the second source I give, which show where they are relative to the map of territory control. ] (]) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Thats not the point anyway, the point is you made 5 reverts on a 1 revert rule page. ] (]) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Stop acting like you don't know the rules. You can't just simply show a map and make changings referring to that. You have to show a certain source for every single village/town. ]'s statement was very clear and i think you are aware of that. As i said, my act was normal reflection for protection of the map. Nevertheless, i will respect the decision of decision-maker. ] (]) 15:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I gave a map showing the area's control, then provided a source for the exact location and name of the town. So I did follow the standard process. But as I said that's not the point. ] (]) 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}}. I locked the template for three days. Just to be clear, both users in this report breached ]. If they had been the only two, I would have blocked them both. However, there were others who also breached 1RR, and I didn't wish to impose more than two blocks. Those other editors, as well as AOnline, will be formally warned, even though warnings aren't required to impose sanctions.--] (]) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::As the last (warned) party of this apparently, I share similar opinion as AOnline above. I tried with a minimal number of edits to revert the map from deleted and un-referenced vandalism, instead of changing content. My preceding comments were always discussed prior to editing in the Talk page. I have made the administration aware since yesterday. Anyhow, I will respect the decision of administrator including me.] (]) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected; warned) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|John M. Phillips}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PrestonHornsby}} <br />
	'''IPs involved:''' ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]

	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	and many more...

	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	# (IP)
	# (IP)
	# (IP)

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	About seven IPs (very likely all the same person) are involved in this edit war that has been going on for '''over a month'''. I've warned ] but he doesn't seem to talk much, nor the IPs. See ].

	How to deal with PresentHornsby I don't know, as I actually feel his contribution was constructive. I do however recommend semi-protection of the article to prevent further disruption from IP hoppers. — ] ] 15:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}}
	:*{{AN3\|w}}. I have semi-protected the article for a week. I've warned Preston that if he continues to add material that is even in part a ] violation, he will be blocked. {{reply\|MusikAnimal}} I know you're acting in good faith, but please be ''very'' careful about restoring any material the IPs have removed (that Preston originally added). In looking at some of them, they are violations of ] and cannot remain in the article as crafted. For example, in one of them, the material itself was not supported by the source. The article discussed Phillips and a video, but it didn't say what Preston wrote. Anytime we add negative material to a BLP, we have to be extra careful that it complies with all aspects of BLP policy.--] (]) 20:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::* Guess I didn't read the source carefully enough... being quite familiar with BLP policy I find that a bit embarrassing. Apologies, and thanks for your help! — ] ] 20:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Libido}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Ed beerman}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|576758331\|18:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576756387 by ] (])testosterone ,dopamine, oxytocin and prolactin leveles are responsible for sex drive as wikipedia also suggests"
	# {{diff2\|576756212\|18:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576755783 by ] (]) hormonal changes during abstinence lead to increased libido."
	# {{diff2\|576755535\|18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576745151 by ] (]) the content removed had valid reference"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Warned in edit summary about RS and 3RR. The same user added the content before creating an account, which makes 4 reverts. ]<sup>x</sup>] 18:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 04:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Adam and Eve}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Jimjilin}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|576686682\|06:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|576752667\|18:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)}} "It is an element of Judaism."
	# {{diff2\|576794062\|00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)}} "The arrticle on Original Sin which you refer to states: Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity."

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	None, but edit summaries were used.

	;<u>Comments:</u>
	Long history of warnings and blocks for edit warring. If I'd come across this editor doing this on an article where I hadn't been one of the ones reverting, I'd have blocked him. ] (]) 08:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

	I am not "warring" I am only pointing out that the article referred to points out that original sin is a controversial concept within both Judaism and Christianity. ] (]) 17:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:If Jimjilin is basing his reverts on the current content of the ] article, he seems to be misstating its conclusions regarding Judaism and the concept of inherited sin. In my opinion Jimjilin has been edit warring here, but he may be able to avoid sanctions if he will agree to get consensus before changing the article again. ] (]) 19:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Natural landscape}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Rstafursky}}

	<!-- 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 />
	Editor has persistently reverted additions to the article. The only vaguely legitimate reason given is that the material is " focused on unreferenced material". however all material is fully referenced to reputable journal articles and texts. The editor refuses to ente rinto discussion on why precisely they think that the material is unreferenced. The only other reason given for the persistent reversions is that the user believes that my intentions are not suitable. ] (]) 22:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	* Both of you are edit warring, even though neither of you technically violated 3RR. {{User-c\|Mark Marathon}}, you should know better especially since you have a block history for similar behavior. Because of your history and the constant reversions at ], I have blocked you for 36 hours. {{User-c\|Rstafursky}}, since I do not see any previous history of edit warring, I'm willing to waive a similar block if you commit to avoiding future edit warring and bringing issues to discussion or dispute resolution sooner in the future. —] (]) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Liberty University‎}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|71.71.5.101‎}}

	The edit warring is obvious if you look at the editor's history. He or she has been warned and asked to participate in discussion in the article's Talk page to no avail. ] (]) 01:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Nuremberg Laws}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Herzlicheboy}}

	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	# <small>added by —] (]) 12:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</small>

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

	User:Herzlicheboy is being disruptive at the article ] (among other problems with other edits, but I am here for this article specifically). He's accusing me of not checking the sources (I did check them), he's rejecting perfectly clearly sources (which are accessible to all) and trying to delete a paragraph in the article. Besides that, he's accusing me of using a bot to revert his edits (which I didn't), to have spent some seconds to do that (which I didn't, it took two hours until his edit was reverted by me), and suggesting me to stick editing Pokemon articles (which I don't). ] (]) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

	Thank you. Firstly, the user "2 bits" made no attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page. The only attempt made to resolve this issue on the talk page was mine. See this please: ], and the user "2 bits" has not made the slightest attempt on the talk page to justify why he thinks the sources support the statement he wants to keep in the article. My position is that the sources don't support the statement, ergo they are false sources, or not apposite sources for the assertion made. Furthermore, I did not revert the article any unreasonable number of times. ] (]) 01:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

	: If I hadn't edited this article several times in the past I would block Herzlicheboy for personal attacks. This is not a matter of who is right about the sources, but Herzlicheboy's unacceptable approach to the problem. It is not OK to call another editor a "Huggle bot type", accusing him/her of "no thought or research at all", or claiming to prove another editor didn't look at a book because he (Herzlicheboy) couldn't see it on Google books. (These are all at ].) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

	*{{User-c\|Herzlicheboy}} is {{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} for violating 3RR and for the ] (bordering on ]) shown on the article's talk page and on ]. Further, when considering this editor's prior history of unhelpful edits, , I am concerned that he may not ]. {{User-c\|My-2-bits}}, your behavior could also easily be interpreted as edit warring, but given that you have certainly handled this issue with more civility than Herzlicheboy and have no prior history of edit warring, I don't see a need for a block regarding this incident. —] (]) 11:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* I realized if I say he broke 3RR, I ought to provide the 4th diff, which I have listed above. —] (]) 12:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48h) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fractional reserve banking}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Reissgo}}

	<!-- 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. -->
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fractional_reserve_banking&oldid=576532354

	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 />
	Editor Riessgo has a history of edit-warring his personal theories into articles concerning Fractional reserve banking and Full reserve banking. He is joined from time to time by various single purpose accounts. Despite a recent warning, he continues to EW this article. Although he waited to do the most recent revert until the 24 hour period had expired, the pattern and intention of edit warring is clear and the longstanding disruption of this article needs to be stopped. ]] 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

	*I see three edits on October 11 and one edit on October 13, so this is not a brightline violation of 3RR. The case must be made that Reissgo is disruptive, that long-term edit warring is involved. ] (]) 14:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. This may not be a 3RR violation, but it's definitely edit warring - the case is made by the page history. Considering that, plus the user has a prior block history for edit warring on an article in the same topic, it's an edit-warring DUCK to me. —] (]) 17:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|State of Palestine}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Lanlan lanwan}}

	<!-- 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:
	* at 2013-10-13T08:14:41 is a revert of the edit at .
	* at 2013-10-13T13:00:58 is a revert of the edit at 2013-10-13T10:03:23.
	The article is within scope of ] and covered by 1RR. The 2 reverts above are a 1RR violation. I warned the editor at ] and gave them an opportunity to self-revert. Their edit was reverted by another user.
	* They decided to at 2013-10-13T14:37:22, self-reverted shortly afterwards and opened although, like all of the edits, it's based on reasoning inconsistent with ].
	* They then made at 2013-10-13T16:19:31.

	<!-- 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: See ].

	<!-- 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: See ] and ]

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	The account appears to only be used intermittently and the editor doesn't seem to be familiar with policy. Nevertheless, could an admin please either give them a stern warning to stop edit warring and use the talk page or a short break from the article. They are going to start fires in the topic area if they carry on like this. I don't think they are ready to edit in the ] personally but I'm happy to be proved wrong. They should probably also receive an official ARBPIA notification too. I'm opposed to those being issued by non-admins so I haven't done that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 17:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}}. User received sufficient warnings from other editors; an "official" warning wasn't needed.--] (]) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Saib Tabrizi}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Urməvi}}

	<!-- 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: Well, i did not do that, but i have already tried to do it in the history page, and told him that he couldn't do such edits without sources in his own talk page. He has been blocked before because of this.

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

	{{AN3\|w}} Both editors have been issued formal warnings of enforcement under ], and notified that further edit warring will lead to sanctions being imposed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|United States v. Manning}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|IrishStephen}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|577018211\|17:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 577007320 by ] (]) An administrator's decision trumps your opinion."
	# {{diff2\|577006611\|16:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Correcting the article again. Several editors seem to be living in a fantasy land."
	# {{diff2\|576999984\|15:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): I would ask that you read ] . (])"
	# {{diff2\|576998680\|15:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 576940777 by ] (]) The discussion at ] sets the new standard which should be upheld across Misplaced Pages."
	# {{diff2\|576874959\|16:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Edited the opening sentence of the article to mirror the consensus reached over renaming the ] article."

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|577007771\|16:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|577000275\|15:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Changing mentions of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning */ Comment"
	# {{diff2\|577005187\|16:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Changing mentions of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning */ Comment"

	;<u>Comments:</u>
	The 3RR warning above was the second one added. I did so not realizing that user Hot Stop had posted one moments before. User IrishStephen did the last change after the warnings had been posted. – ] (]) 18:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

	I made my edits to mirror the decision undertaking by administrators to rename the Bradley Manning article to ] ]. I believe this decision requires us to reflect this change on other pages relating to Manning. I stand by my edits and await any further decision by administrators. Regards ] (]) 19:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|pe}} ] (]) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:46, 24 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)

User:Pipera reported by User:Paramandyr (Result: Both blocked 48 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: ,

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

Comments:

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

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

content user added to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have added the followi9ng: Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. . Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided. They had: Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue: Robert de St Andrew married Albreda James de St Andrew (1228) Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278) William de St Andrew Laurence de St Andrew Saer II de St Andrew John de St Andrew Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249) Orabilis and Robert divorced. Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. . it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here. They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.

content user added to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have added the followi9ng:

Robert married Orabilis, daughter of Nes fitz William, Lord of Leuchars. .

Orabilis was married three times to Morggán, Earl of Mar and Adam of Fife, as stated in the links provided.

They had:

Saer de Quincy (died 1219), married Margaret de Beaumont, daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 3rd Earl of Leicester

Unknown (daughter) de Quincy married de St Andrew

Sir Saer I de St Andrew of East Haddon married Matilda de Dyve daughter of Hugh Dyve and Agnes they had issue:

Robert de St Andrew married Albreda

James de St Andrew (1228)

Ralph de St Andrew (1228 - 1278)

William de St Andrew

Laurence de St Andrew

Saer II de St Andrew

John de St Andrew

Sir Roger de St Andrew (d before 1249)

Orabilis and Robert divorced.

Secondly, he married Eve of Galloway, who was previously married to Walter Barclay. .

it is alright for the children of Saer de Quincy to be placed on his page here, and not for the children of his sis5ter not to be placed here.

They are also the grandchildren of the said parents and deserve the right to be placed there as well as the marriages of Roberts first wife and her three husbands as well as the second marriage of Robert her husband.

I do not think I have broken any rules by adding this to his article supported by the external links provided. Pipera (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I have posted to the talk page this is also incorrect. Pipera (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not in an edit war, I posted new information which is educationally correct and was removed without any academic argument it was gone. no pre talk on the talk page concerning what was supplied by the person deleting the information.

They firstly need to raise and entry and then talk and resolve, Pipera (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I am expanding these articles not rolling them back. I have been editing here since at least the year 2001, I was editing entries for the 9/11 project obituaries for the people that passed in 9/11. Pipera (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

See

User talk:Paramandyr: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Paramandyr&diff=prev&oldid=1264014635

Latest revision as of 23:20, 19 December 2024 edit undo thank

Paramandyr (talk | contribs)

removed, stay off my talk page

Tag: Undo Pipera (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

Stale; content removed until a consensus is found ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:21, 22 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: 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)

Categories: