Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:46, 20 April 2014 editKuru (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators203,976 edits →User:72.199.145.35 reported by User:Andyjsmith (Result: ): close← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:56, 26 December 2024 edit undoCallmehelper (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users656 edits →User:Callmehelper reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: ): ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 242 |counter = 490
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 month) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PaleoFile}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Translations of The Lord of the Rings}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.192.250.101}}


'''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:
# ... going back months
#
#
#
#
#
#


<!-- 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: ] and almost everything below that.


'''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 />
This has been going on a long time; there's a number of editors reverting him, and someone from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard left an opinion against him. As far as I can tell, no other editors support his case and certainly no non-IPs.] (]) 18:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Blocked one month. This editor has removed the section about an Esperanto translation 14 times in the last six months. An IP who could well be the same person was {{user|178.49.18.203}}, but he has not been active since September 2013. If this were a registered account an indefinite block should be considered. ] (]) 03:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 month) ==


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
;Page: {{pagelinks|Talk:The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss: Cool Sounds All Around!}}
*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
;User being reported: {{userlinks|67.242.113.32}}
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
*:1.
*:2.
*:3.
*:4.
*:5.
*:6.
*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
*:Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) ] (]) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. ] (]) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's ]. ] | ] 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
;Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lindy Li}} <br />
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Napoleonjosephine2020}}
# {{diff2|604460880|15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)}} "]Created page with '==Characters== ===Main Characters=== * '''Eliza Jane''' (performed by ]) - the main protagonist * ''']''' - (performed by...'"


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|604631720|19:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on ]. (])"


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
#
# {{diff2|604631526|19:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Requesting speedy deletion (]). (])"
#
#
#


;<u>Comments:</u>


This user continually creates what I assume are meant to be articles, but does so in the talk namespace only, and not in the main namespace. They have done so with several pages; ] is another example. The pages in question have been deleted several times, and a prior block did not alter their behavior. ] (]) 19:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


I reported this once before (resulting in the prior block). ] (]) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b}} – One month for disruptive editing. Misuse of article talk space in the effort to create articles of his own design. Admins will have to keep doing G8 speedy deletions if the user can't get with the program. Is it possible they are just confused? Unlikely. This user has received plenty of advice at ] since 15 March, but they have never responded. This block can be lifted by any admin if the editor will agree to follow Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Same-sex unions}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Knisfo}}


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


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


Note: I am not involved in this situation whatsoever, just found this in recent changes. ] • ] • ] 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to 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:
#
#
#
#
#
#


: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)
<!-- 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. -->
::"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)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,
:::You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. ] (]) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. ] • ] • ] 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). , for those curious. ] (]) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
<!-- 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|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
'''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:'''
May well be a reasonable edit, but it involves interpretation of a law that differs from what 2ary sources report. We should at least come to consensus on the talk page that an amateur reading of the law is acceptable in this case. — ] (]) 10:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:Not the first time, see ], where if the edits by {{useranon|46.114.56.53}} and {{useranon|46.114.8.119}} are included, 3RR was breached as follows: . --] (]) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}}.--] (]) 19:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
#
#
#
# (second IP)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Czechs}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Der Golem}}


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


<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not participate in reverts. Warned first IP on their own talk page
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> Persistent POV pushing, he was asked multiple times to provide sources and multiple users told him he's wrong, but keeps reverting.--] (]) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC) <br />


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*'''Result:''' Article protected one month. Please use this time to reach consensus on the talk page. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached. ] (]) 03:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a stating {{tq|I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here.}}, and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. {{userlinks|CipherRephic}} was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop after being warned and has not broken 3RR. ] | ] 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Strfornawuks blocked) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==


;Page: {{pagelinks|International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis}} '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Marc Benioff}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|CouchTomato}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|99.98.190.59}}
;Previous version reverted to:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1265024674|18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
# {{diff2|1265033023|18:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


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


;<u>Comments:</u> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
Please block {{lu|CouchTomato}} for his disruptive edits in the ] page. He began his disruptive edits by reverte moving Israel to the "partially recognized states" category. I reverted his edit, stating that Israel did not belong in that category" recognized states" category. He promptly counter-reverted my edit, and then put a warning on my talk page to block me. Another user reverted his edit, and he did the same thing to that user. Once again, I undid CouchTomato revision, again stated why it was wrong and put a warning on his talk page (which he has since removed). Given that his edits are politically motivated and diverge from the common standards in Misplaced Pages, that he has made these revisions against multiple users without proper dialogue, and that he subsequently threatened them with blocks, this amounts to vandalism that should at least result in a block. ] (]) 18:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:See also an April 17th report of the same dispute at ]. This article has sections both for ''states'' and for ''partially recognized states''. Strfornawuks in this article. The dispute has been but so far neither party has used the article talk page. ] (]) 20:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::This guy pretty much just took my comment from ] and changed the wording around. Note that I kept my justifications within the revision comments and not the talk page because arguing over groupings is not discussion about the article itself, nor has any relevance to it. He states "common standards in Misplaced Pages," but everywhere else, Israel is listed in states. "Partially recognized states" always includes states that are recognized by very few, often 0-2 countries and are not UN members. This was pointed to ], but frankly, over something so small like this, it's not even a matter of debate; there is no gray zone, as Israel has always been listed with other countries in all of Misplaced Pages. How can he be calling my reverts "vandalism" when all I'm doing is keeping the article in line with the rest of Misplaced Pages? Please note that I have absolutely no political agenda here. I do not care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all and just made the edits because I stumbled upon and thought it was silly and wrong for it to be like that. ] (]) 21:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}} ] for 48 hours for disruptive editing, POV-pushing and edit warring. {{U|CouchTomato}} should have started a thread on the issue at the article talk page, but they did try to address it at ANI, and the edits by and attitude of Strfornawuks are disruptive. The status quo was with Israel in the recognized states list, and moving it to partially recognized makes no sense. The only reason there was a break in the edit war was because there was a break in Strfornawuks's contribution history. Strfornawuks has also removed two chunks of material from the article, one already mentioned at ANI, and another concerning Nicaragua. No one has reverted those changes, but the article has relatively few watchers. As for whether these edits fall under ], my view is no because it concerns Israel alone. Perhaps I'm missing something there. In any event, my block is not an ArbCom enforcement block.--] (]) 22:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Dune: Part Two}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours, Semi 1 year) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ChasePlowman2014}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Crimean status referendum, 2014}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|83.237.233.255}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to: ]
# {{diff2|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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1265079184|00:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|1265080757|00:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ] (different, but similar IP address, outside 24h period)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1265080353|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]


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


User continues edit warring and doesn't discuss edits even after having been requested to, not even explaining their reversions in their edit summary. ] (]) 13:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
:{{u|ChasePlowman2014}} is completely unresponsive. I hope they try editing during the 2 weeks of their block and notice that they have a talk page. ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
**Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the ] explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
**:{{u|Jasca Ducato}}, this isn't about the time taken to respond to the noticeboard report. {{u|ChasePlowman2014}} isn't using edit summaries nor talk pages and ignores warnings on their talk page about their behavior. ] (]) 04:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
* The user keeps reinserting the sentence and does not discuss or provide edit summaries. It has been decided in the talk, that the sentence should be removed. May I treat it as vandalism and revert it repeatedly? &mdash; ] 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b|48 hours}} The IP should use the talk page to get consensus for their change. The question of how to describe the role of the observers has been extensively discussed on Talk. ] (]) 20:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
* Another IP address:
*# ]
*# ]
*# ]
: &mdash; ] 06:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
* And another one:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Callmehelper}}
*# ]
: Please semi-protect the article. &mdash; ] 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Semi-protected by {{u|Callanecc}} for 1 year. &mdash; ] 10:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|California State University, Fresno}}
#
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Fredin323}}
#
#
#


;Previous version reverted to:


;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|604694524|05:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 604663666 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|604738880|14:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)}} "incomplete data, does not differentiate between grad, undergrad, postgrad populations, 9.7% "Unknown" is not a race, race-conscious and therefore racist. it will not stay on this page."
# {{diff2|604803641|22:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)}} "does not differentiate between grad, undergrad, and postgrad populations, the vast majority of Misplaced Pages university pages DO NOT include race-based statistics"
# {{diff2|604804413|22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Bahooka, please stop the edit warring, you are in violation of Misplaced Pages regulations and could have your editing privileges revoked. If you have a problem with the fact that most pages do not include race-based statistics, then change that. Not this."


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


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


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


:It's me @].
Ongoing edit warring against consensus on talk page. Has been warned many times for awhile yet continues. Now has crossed 3RR bright line. ] (]) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:'''Clarification by my side ; '''
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}.--] (]) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.

:* ''Disputes details'' ;
== ] reported by ], Relisted (Result: Declined; stale) ==
:# Firstly , I edit ] check history of that page from to

:#''' process of reverting by others and my responses'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|2015 Formula One season}}<br>
:** then and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes ] then i thought matter would be solved.
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Prisonermonkeys}}<br>
:*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
;Previous version reverted to:
: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.
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
: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.
# {{diff2|603983784|08:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)}} "read the sources - ALL of them"
:so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .
# {{diff2|603953860|01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)}} "and the other source literally states that they have been accepted - and it comes from the man who controls the agreement the team would need to sign to compete"
:'''Conclusion'''
# {{diff2|603946444|00:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)}} "but they *have* been confirmed by Ecclestone, who controls the Concorde, and thus would be in a pisition to comment - hence the footnote"
: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.
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
: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.
# {{diff2|604087545|00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)}}
:

:I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
:Much Regards. ] (]) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
# {{diff2|603957128|02:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Forza Rossa - the new Sirotkin */ reply"

;<u>Comments:</u>

Another in an ever increasing list of edit wars by this user. Although this one is not a direct violation of WP:3RR, it is still an edit war. The user reverted twice before going to the article's talk page and a third time later on despite having been explained by two users at that point that the reversions were unjustified.

A list of the edit wars the user has been involved in during the last twelve months:
-]
-]
-]
-]
-]
-

I would like to suggest that at the very least this user is subjected to 1RR in a bid to stop the repetitive behavior. ] (]) 00:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

:Everything Tvx1 has said about me could reasonably be said about him. He frequently edit-wars, operating under the mistaken belief that if he thinks he is right, then he is permitted to do so. He regularly posts 3RR warning templates on the talk pages of editors he is warring against, and eventually refers them here, which I believe is little more than an attempt to try and intimidate others into backing down and accepting his preferred version of edits. If he had taken the time to check the article in question, he would have seen that it has since stabilised, and that it stabilised once someone made an actual argument in favour of the changes he was pushing for. Furthermore, there is an open case at DRN which he started, and in which he clearly misrepresents the situation. Considering this, I believe that it is quite clear that Tvx1 has developed the alarming habit of calling the administrators down on anyone he disagrees with in an attempt to force though his preferred version of an article, as he is frequently in the minority when it comes to a consensus. As evidenced here, he edit-warred, even after being shown evidence that he should have considered; then came here at the first opportunity - even after the issue was resolved. If I am guilty of 3RR, then so too is he, and I implore any administrator reviewing this case to consider Tvx1's history of calling on admins to try and bully his preferred edits into an article. He is, for want of a better word, compromised by this behaviour and his own role in the disputes he brings to the attention of admins. ] (]) 01:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
::This is an unfounded ] and violation of ]. If it is necessary for the reviewing administrator to check my editing history. Be my guest. You'll find no such proof of frequent edit warring. In fact I strongly doubt you will find any violation of ] at all. I am not operating under the mistaken belief that if I think I'm right, then I'm permitted to edit-war by any means. I bloody well know that edit-warring is prohibited by policy even if one thinks one is right. I never make more than two reversions after which I will solely concentrate my efforts on the talk page of the article in question and if that fails I'll search for other solutions to resolve the matter like fore instance Dispute Resolution. If i report anyone here I do that under the belief that the user in question has broken one of the policies this noticeboard governs and administrator action is warranted. Regarding this particular article, I made '''one''' reversion, '''ONE''', after Prisonermonkeys reverted my original edit. I don't know why I'm even remotely accused of having broken ] here. ] (]) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

:::It is very, very difficult for me to assume good faith when I see a pattern to your behaviour. Given your tactics in other discussions - like the way you misrepresented the situation at DRN, like the way you have ignored a clear consensus in the past, like the way you stall at every opportunity - I am left wondering at this one. If it is your only intent to resolve issues diplomatically, why am I left feeling as if you are trying to force through your preferred edits every single time you do it? You take a minority position - in this case, you were in the majority, but only once someone did your job for you and made an actual argument - and edit-war just enough to keep your nose clean, and then threaten administrator action against any other party. And lo and behold, you get your way; the article is written the way you think it should be written, regardless of what a consensus might say. So I find it very difficult to assume good faith when you stand to gain so much from it. You know perfectly well that the DRN is coming up for review, and you know perfectly well that we argue opposing points of view in it. If any sort of admin action was taken against me, it would limit my ability to take part in that DRN, and the side opposed to you loses one of its biggest supporters. And here you are, twelve hours after an unrelated situation has been resolved - and you had to know it was resolved to get those edit differences - lobbying for admin action against me.

:::Like I said, if your only intention is to resolve a situation diplomatically, why am I left feeling like you are trying to force through the resolution you prefer? ] (]) 03:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Changing one of the diffs in the report to an unrelated one ({{diff2|604100425|03:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)}}) won't help your cause either.

:::::I post from an old mobile device. Sometimes when I make a spelling error - and especially if the section I am editing is lengthy - the auto-correct software inserts the correct word at a random point in the text window, often over-writing existing text. When that happens, the best I can do is guess at what the original text read. ] (]) 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::There's no need to lash out on me like this. You're the one who edit-warred and if the administrators consider it warranted to take action you only have yourself to blame for that. It took 6 editors, three of whom had to revert your additions to the article, to make you realize that you're edits were premature. So I don't see why you claim it is '''I''' who tried to force their preferred edits through. And I don't understand the claim that "someone else did my job for me" either. I brought the majority of the talk page input and the five of us who brought arguments against you wrote more or less the same: The content you were trying to add hasn't been confirmed yet, WP is not a news site so we can take the time to verify this, you misinterpreted Bernie's comments. Bretonbanquet added to that we should wait until we have FIA '''and''' FOM confirmation, something you had actually mentioned yourself earlier on. This report is entirely independent from the Dispute Resulotion on an unrelated issue we are currently taking part in. It's not even remotely my intent to try to prevent you from taking part in that, why else would I have suggested 1RR restriction in the first place you think, and I have never claimed that I would only accept the Dispute Resoultion outcome if it's my favor. The '''only''' reason why I have reported you hear is to make you finally realize that Edit-Warring is not a solution to resolve disputes. Again, these accusations you throw at me are entirely unjustified. ] (]) 09:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::'''Update''': Prisonermonkeys has since gotten involved in another .
{{outdent}}
Once again, you dodge the question. Why is it that every time you report someone for 3RR, I am left unable to shake the feeling that there is something in it for you - something more than stabilising the page or resolving a dispute?

You claim, for instance, that you will limit yourself to two reverts before moving to the talk page. But do you know what I see? Someone who edit-wars just enough to avoid getting in trouble, relying on the other party to continue edit-warring, and then posting templates on their talk page or coming here to intimidate them into standing down and/or accepting the edits you want. You claim you do nothing wrong, and yet here we are, having this discussion. The idea did not simply appear in my mind one day - there is a pattern here.

And, predictably, you sit on that article, watching that content, for the first sign of trouble. As I expected you would, and so edited accordingly. It is quite clear to me now that you are compromised. You claim to be acting in the interests of the article, but always get something out of it. You want me to be put on a 1RR; fine. In that case, I suggest Tvx1 be prevented from referring cases to ANI or posting warnings on talk pages until he learns that they are not a platform for him to try and manipulate content. ] (]) 11:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
:I can't answer the question for yourself why you assume bad faith by default in another user's contributions. That's something you yourself have to find out. I have stated and I will repeat that my sole intention of referring you here is to make you understand that edit-warring leads to nothing at all. If you refuse to accept that than that is your problem. I'm really getting tired of this ridiculous bullying/intimidating accusations. Please tell me what I stand to gain from the dispute between you and ]. If you really want to prevent me (or others) from warning or worse even reporting you than the only thing you have to do is not to edit war at all. ] (]) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
::Relisted because no attention was given to the original reporting. ] (]) 22:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}}
:*{{AN3|s}}. {{U|Tvx1}}, don't relist reports just because they didn't go the way you wanted them to. PM has not violated 3RR, and although I haven't checked whether the April 13 sequence is a violation, even if it were, it's stale. If you have a problem with a pattern of conduct by PM, take it to another board.--] (]) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

==Article ] (Result: Blocks and semi-protection)==
;Page: {{pagelinks|List of job scheduler software}}
;Users:
*{{userlinks|Ronz}} reporting this mess - looking for help
*{{userlinks|SQM03}} New SPA
*{{userlinks|RevSoft}} New SPA with coi-username violation
*{{userlinks|165.228.54.71}} New SPA
*{{userlinks|101.165.196.165}} SPA

] an entry for their software into ], which has been going on since at least February (I may be overlooking an ip).

I'm assuming these SQM03, RevSoft, 165.228.54.71, and 101.165.196.165 are all one person. I'm concerned that there is a language problem here, or at least extremely poor understanding that Misplaced Pages is not to be used for ] purposes. I've self-reverted and am going to wait to see what others say on the situation.

Discussions at ], ], ], and ].

Also, I tend to avoid reverting in such cases, but this has been going on since at least February, so I've treated it as spamming for promotional purposes. Turns out it is for self-promotion, but I'd like suggestions on how to handle it better next time around. --] (]) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

:] in this case. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. I blocked SQM03 indefinitely for sock puppetry and the master, RevSoft, for one month for the same. I semi-protected the article for a week against the IPs. I removed the promotional material from the article because of {{U|Ronz}}'s discomfort at doing so.--] (]) 17:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks everyone. Next time I'll be quicker to seek out help. --] (]) 17:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|FC Barcelona}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gringoladomenega}}

<!-- 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|FC Barcelona|604729145|604725954|Last stable version}}

<!-- 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|FC Barcelona|604786735|604729145|2014-04-18T20:10:08}}
# {{diff|FC Barcelona|604787762|604787097|2014-04-18T20:19:05}}
# {{diff|FC Barcelona|604799855|604792336|2014-04-18T22:03:20}}
# {{diff|FC Barcelona|604815715|604803579|2014-04-19T00:40:40}}
# {{diff|FC Barcelona|604871029|604839424|2014-04-19T12:55:56}}
# {{diff|FC Barcelona|604927928|604926763|2014-04-19T20:50:56}}
# {{diff|FC Barcelona|604934040|604933761|2014-04-19T21:37:13}} - This was after notice that this discussion was launched.

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff|User talk:Gringoladomenega|604816189|604804419|my warning}}
#* {{diff|User talk:Gringoladomenega|604817490|604816189|editor removed the warning and an early attempt at resolving}}
# {{diff|User talk:Gringoladomenega|604871461|604817490|The Rambling Man's 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:
* ]
* Also a discussion on the editor's talk page removed as described above.

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

The editor is not a native English speaker and so communicating with the editor is not easy, however the editor has complaints on the editor's mentor's talk page: ] and the editor has been blocked for edit warring on these exact pages before.

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

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Barbara Lerner Spectre}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|JeffLB}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|604808504|23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 604336212 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|604824948|02:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 604820942 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|604827900|03:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 604827772 by ] (]) Please see my reply to your comments in the talk section."
# {{diff2|604944787|23:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 604887534 by ] (]) I cited a secondary source, an article by a tenured professor at Cal State -LB, and offered to name more. Please see my notes in Talk.and reply."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|604901977|17:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. using ]"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Discussion: ] ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Becky Bell}} (subject to 1RR, like ])<br/>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BoboMeowCat}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on 19:43, 18 April 2014, prior to both reverts

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
I think this is a straightforward 1RR violation, despite prior warning. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 03:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

:Please see ]. Serious concerns regarding violations of NPOV were reason for initial revert.
:WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Reverted version also deleted significant amount of text referenced by reliable sources. My revert was reverted, so this version currently stands.

:Second revert (which involved content not changed in first revert, so not an edit warring situation) was to delete lengthy quote from a dead link attributed to a non-neutral source involving allegations of attempted murder. As I said in edit comment, are there any neutral sources for this such as police report?--] (]) 03:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b}} – 24 hours for ] violation. ] (]) 04:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Yardley of London}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Aimperator}}

<!-- 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: (June 2012)

<!-- 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:
# (August 2012)
# (September)
# (September)
# (March 2013)
# (April)
# (December)
# (April 2014)
#
#
#

<!-- 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 />

The editor has been repeatedly adding in unsourced claims relating to the age of the company for nearly two years now, despite being reverted by several independent and unconnected editors, despite explanations on the talk page and despite repeated requests to cease their activity at their talk page. The reason this has gone on for so long is because the low frequency of the edits (ten edits in a 20 month span) is easy to control, but if the editor isn't going to respond to reason then some sort of punitive action is going to have to be considered. At the very least the editor should refrain from making any such edits until there is a consensus for them. ] (]) 08:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 09:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Davidoeoples}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=604992188|diff=604992608|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC) to 08:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|604992460|08:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|604992571|08:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|604992608|08:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|604992058|08:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|604990677|08:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|604989984|08:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|604992441|08:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Additional material also appears to be ] (]) 08:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
: Ok, you're aware that consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be a single edit, for purposes of 3RR reports, right? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 10:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
::And .
::@Dangerous Panda, sorry I taught that I had to include all parts of the revert/undo. ] (]) 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:::As he seems to be continuing, I've blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 13:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Skyhook (structure)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|72.199.145.35}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

3RR. User also seems to be a puppet of Skyhook1 - same edit pattern. ] (]) 11:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:*{{AN3|p}}. Page was semi-protected by Mr. Callanecc. ] ] 13:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:56, 26 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    4. (second IP)



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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