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 19:03, 27 May 2018 editJoshua Jonathan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers107,139 edits →Second case: add quote, explanation; ce← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:24, 27 December 2024 edit undoToBeFree (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,500 edits →User:103.84.130.238 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: ): Page protected (using responseHelper)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
	<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 = ~~368~~		\|counter = 490
	\|algo = old(~~36h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
	\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f		\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|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=" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PaleoFile}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Richard Wagner}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mr KEBAB}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

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

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

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	* Just read my edit summaries, which the OP has refused to do. (S)he also required me to provide a citation when the transcription was unsourced to begin with. ] (]) 16:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	**I did no such thing. Provide diffs of your claims. ] (]) 16:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	***, , ] (]) 16:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	****The first diff is not me; the second and third diffs prove your claim is false. ] (]) 16:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	*****Fair enough, but that doesn't change much. It still means you didn't read my edit summaries. ] (]) 16:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	******Provide diffs or other proof to substantiate that ] claim. ] (]) 16:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	*******I think I'll quit this pointless discussion. ] (]) 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	*For what it's worth, when the comment <code><nowiki><!-- Do not change this without a source --></nowiki></code> was added to the article, the vowel was already {{IPA-de\|ɪ\|}}. It appears it was changed to {{IPA-de\|i\|}} by an IP, probably inadvertently, as their summary explains other changes in the edit but not the one to the first vowel. So I doubt those who reverted Mr KEBAB had any grounding, but Mr KEBAB also could have certainly handled it in a more respectful manner. ] (]) 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	*I must also note that the fourth diff provided by the reporter is not a revert, just a removal of a comment telling people not to edit something already unsourced without providing a source. This strikes me as an ] issue on the part of the two who reverted Mr KEBAB's edit. They reverted it simply because it was a change to something that stood in a featured article for very long, without examining the validity of his edit, which they could have done by simply clicking the notation and reading ]. But Mr KEBAB also could have and should have spared passive-agressive or uncivil comments in summaries on his talk and continued trying to get his point across, such as quoting or pointing to the relevant part of the help page, initiating a conversation on the talk, or citing an external source like ''Duden''. ] (]) 17:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	**Please read ]. "{{xt\|An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a '''single page'''—<u>whether involving the same or different material</u>—within a '''24-hour period'''. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.}}" (underscoring mine) ] (]) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	***Well, if it weren't him someone should have removed such a silly comment a long time ago, if you ask me. ] (]) 17:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	****He was warned about 3RR but made a fourth revert anyway. That's a 3RR violation. ] (]) 17:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	*****I didn't revert anyone but removed an inappropriate hidden message. ] (]) 17:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	******Please read ]. "{{xt\|An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a '''single page'''—<u>whether involving the same or different material</u>—within a '''24-hour period'''. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.}}" (underscoring mine) ] (]) 17:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
	Has ] edit resolved the dispute? --] <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' No action. This war may have stopped. Report again if it continues. ] (]) 01:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
	{{ping\|EdJohnston}} :I noticed outside of harrassing a couple users this past month as seen with this report, and one done here , he has been harassing various users. He recently told and admin to fuck off a couple times for a block and called then an idiot. And threatened to quit wikipedia. Is this something that should be looked into? He's done this about three times in the past month. He also leaves very demeaning messages to people he comes in conflict with as seen in these edit noticeboard postings he's made and these edit summaries: , The admin did handle what he said to her, but I do notice this has become a pattern with him. Kebab has never apologized for any of it. ] (]) 20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Al-Awamiyah}}<br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Altamimi579}}

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# : first straight revert
	# : second straight revert
	# : third straight revert
	# : fourth straight revert

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lindy Li}} <br />
	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Napoleonjosephine2020}}

	'''~~Diff~~ of ~~attempt~~ to ~~resolve dispute on article talk page~~:'''		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			#
	Please note that Altamimi579 has made more disruptive edits : , and . This last edit reverted my attempt to bring back the stable version and occured after many attempts to discuss with the reported user : , , , and . The user Altamimi579 firmly declined any attempt to gain consensus : . I would welcome the eye of an admin regarding this user's behavior. Best regards.] (]) 17:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
			#
	:{{AN3\|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 15:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
			#
			#

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Alia Bhatt}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Aligulla}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|842891434\|11:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|842890242\|11:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|842887461\|10:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "she is not british actress however she got british nationality.if she is proud of to be british not indian then she has to work in british movies."
	# {{diff2\|842824591\|22:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|842820144\|22:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Zilch.
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|842888310\|10:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|842890614\|11:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "/* May 2018 */ re"

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

			: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)
	Repeatedly changing the actress' nationality despite (which I ), in which the actress and her father claim otherwise. ] (]) 11:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
			::@]
	:{{AN3\|b}} – 48 hours. ] (]) 01:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
			::"This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." Also, "When reporting a user here, own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand ] and the definitions below first." I am not involved, don't complain to me please. Nothing I can do here. ] • ] • ] 05:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You reported me because I tried to stop someone from violating Li's page! Why is the saboteur getting a free pass? He's clearly motivated by animus and admitted as much on her talk page. ] (]) 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Did you read my comment? You and the other person will have behavior analyzed and decisions will be made accordingly. I'm not singling you out since I have no idea what's happening, you just happened to start the edit war. ] • ] • ] 05:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Napoleon, I think this is a manifestly unfair characterization of what occurred on my talk page (not yours). , for those curious. ] (]) 05:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] ] 06:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Mary~~ ~~Gill~~ (~~politician~~)}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Warburg effect (oncology)}} <br />
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|~~Nilkpo~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:24F6:A73A:9F20:74C}} and {{userlinks\|2601:40:CE00:1590:80BC:3313:5A8D:AACE}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
	# {{diff2\|842932890\|17:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Political career */"
			#
	# {{diff2\|842932675\|17:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Political career */"
			#
	# {{diff2\|842932313\|17:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Political career */"
			# (second IP)
	# {{diff2\|842931306\|17:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Political career */"
	# {{diff2\|842924279\|16:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Political career */"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|842931695\|17:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on ]. (])"

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


			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''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
	Clearly engaging in edit warring and writing BLPs like a news story. see the user talk page for warnings. ] (]) 17:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
	:I blocked Nilkpo for 24 hours. -- ] (]) 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Template:Demi Lovato}}
			I believe both IPs are the same person. The second IP's first edit is a stating {{tq\|I'm not Ravidmurthy, but I am the one who has been doing most of the editing here.}}, and after leaving that and another comment proceeded to make the same reversion (#4 above) as the other IP, a little more than 2 hours after #3. {{userlinks\|CipherRephic}} was also involved in the edit war, but agreed to stop after being warned and has not broken 3RR. ] \| ] 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|108.206.145.38}}
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Marc Benioff}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|842965377\|22:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff\|oldid=842851185\|diff=842910068\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC) to 14:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|842909688\|14:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|842910068\|14:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|842850750\|02:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff\|oldid=842693616\|diff=842820385\|label=Consecutive edits made from 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) to 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|842820344\|22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|842820385\|22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|99.98.190.59}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|842822692\|22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|842851727\|03:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "more on reasons"
	# {{diff2\|842944712\|19:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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

			'''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 edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			# {{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:'''
	{{AN3\|b}} – 3 days. ] (]) 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1265024924\|18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Early life/ethnic background */ more"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocks) ==
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Gail Lese}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Harvardgrad8897}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Dune: Part Two}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ChasePlowman2014}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:

	# {{diff2\|842978062\|00:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 842956611 by ] (]) this is a factual news item with a verified third party noting Gail else’s arrrst."
	# {{diff2\|842956182\|20:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 842955090 by ] (]) no violation. Gail lese is a public figure. Her arrest of assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon were reported in the daily item and it has been properly sourced."
	# {{diff2\|842955302\|20:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 842955090 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|842954086\|20:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 842945205 by ] ( ]) this is from a credible newspaper “the daily item” which is part of the Essex media group publications. Gail leases arrest was published in the police log section of this daily newspaper. Gail lese is a public figure (ran for state senate) so the argument of BLPCRIME is not relevant. Users should be able to add relevant third party sourced data about a public figure."
	# {{diff2\|842643356\|18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 842501290 by ] (]) Gail Lese is a public figure that ran for state senate. this is referenced in the article. she is also a published MD and American CEO. the arrest reference is attributed to a credible third party media outlet."\|warnings=# {{diff2\|842955647\|20:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ].

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff2\|842955647\|20:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ].

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|842501437\|21:29, May 22, 2018‎ (UTC) on Talk:Gail Lese}} "Removed personal life, violates WP:BLPCRIME
	*full thread has multiple posts

	;<u>Comments:</u>
	Restoring BLP violating criminal material. Subject made one unsuccessful run for public office so is unlikely to be a public figure, thus this violates ]. Even if the subject is considered well-known, the one source does not pass ]. The editor has made no attempt to respond to the article talk page or user talk page posts. ] (]) 00:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

	The source is just a police blotter report of an arrest, with no mention of any trial or conviction. ] (]) 01:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

	And now that this user is at AN3 a new account ] is created and three minutes later restores the edit with a similar sounding summary ] (]) 04:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

	:{{AN3\|b}} – 48 hours to ] for edit warring and one week to ], an apparent sock. ] (]) 04:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Young blood transfusion}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Violetriga}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* Issue #1 , their preferred version of the lead when they nominated it for DYK on May 7: {{tq\|Young blood transfusion refers to the transferral of blood from a young '''source''' into an older '''animal''' with the intention of having a medicinal effect}}
	* Issued #2 , removing "The scientific community currently views the practice as little more than ]" at 12:30, 25 May 2018

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' with respect to "animals" vs "humans" in the lead
	# 20:53, 25 May 2018, Reverting restoration of material they had deleted per issue #2 above.
	# 00:34, 26 May 2018. Reverting on issue #1 above changing "human" back to "animal"; edit note {{tq\|Not just people, that’s the important fact}}
	# 01:13, 26 May 2018. Reverting on issue #1 above; edit note {{tq\|No! The article talks about mice. The term is not just used for humans, that’s the argument! And I removed snake oil because it’s not in the source!!)}}
	# 15:26, 26 May 2018. Reverting on issue #1 above; again restoring "animal" in the lead

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ; note that they , and promptly such a notice. Classic behavior of an aggressive new editor who doesn't understand that these are notices, not badges of shame; unfathomable for a former admin.

	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:*Issue #1 ]; ], just now, ]
	* Issue #2 ]; ]

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

	Last month they were subject to an about their edit warring and bad behavior on other articles they have created, which was closed after they wrote , showing apparent self-insight, {{tq\| I clearly have WP:OWN issues on articles that I have just created and my behaviour was not appropriate.}}. They have continued demonstrating the exact same behavior described at ANI at ], and I opened an AN thread on this, which was (frustratingly for me) . So, a more narrow venue. They have reverted me, ], ], ], and ] over the past four days, and are more or less single-handedly and single-mindedly trying to force their vision of the page into the article.

	I am looking for an edit warring block to help them ''actually understand'' that they have a pattern of OWN behavior and they need to change it. There is much more but I have focused on the clear breaking of 3RR in the last 24 hours. There was lots of edit warring before, by people including me. Everyone but violetriga has stepped back from that. ] (]) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	:It’s amazing that it’s taken until now for you to say that this is the problem. I’ve been asking for an age why you think this is about humans only. I think you’ll find the creation of a straw poll on the talk page will solve this issue without need for any punitive action. But all you are after is getting me blocked, as evidenced by the rudeness and the threats. The change from person to animal was made by me to try and solve the issues '''you''' have with the article rather than me trying to push my own viewpoint. I’ve created so much discussion on the talk page there it should be evident what I’m trying to do. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 17:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	::You are misrepresenting the history.
	::*I explained and . Doc James explained it . Roxythedog explained it . It was explained in each of the edit notes where you were reverted.
	::* I added appropriately sourced and written to the article in diff, and said I did so .
	::*You are misrepresenting, and you have very clearly violated 3RR over the last 24 hours. ] (]) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

	::This is not a single person problem; Jytdog's behavior on this article has been aggressive and vitriolic which tends to put other editors' backs up. I would suggest both editors be careful of edit warring and tone and that Jytdog might consider a more collaborative manner when dealing with other editors.(] (]) 17:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC))
	:::Agreed. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 17:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	::The snake oil issue is now resolved. I removed it simply because the source did not say specifically that young blood is snake oil. Since then other sources have been used to back up the claim and I am happy with that. That is how collaborative editing works. Jytdog is spending more time trying to get a block than actually trying to improve the article. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 17:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	:::And a resolution presents itself. The fact that this procedure is only '''notable''' because it is in humans has now been described. That is fine with me and I agree that it should be "person". The only reason I wanted it otherwise was because Jytdog was pushing for it to not have any content about mice which is where the vast majority of the research currently is. If he spent more time actually discussing things then maybe we could have arrived at this resolution literally days ago. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 17:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	::::Per the , I have used the talk page as much as you. You are again misrepresenting what has happened. ] (]) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	* Littleolive oil has taken to following me around WP and arguing with me, and is heading for a one-way Iban. See .] (]) 18:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	:: Jytdog that's silly. If I wanted to follow you around Misplaced Pages there be a lot of crossover which there isn't. Given that I teach movement, dance, and have worked in theater, Alexander Technique for example is a place I definitely want to be if there is a concern with the content. And there are several places where other interests may crossover. Are you going to try and tell me I've followed you to TM articles. I have most certainly landed deliberately in a few places where I saw Jytdog's treatment of editors, especially new editors, which really, really bothered me. I have found myself in position of trying to smooth over hurt feelings with a sense that we are losing editors when people are treated to an aggressive editor. In truth, I try to stay away from Jytdog; he isn't pleasant, and have avoided interactions in many cases. And when I felt I have had to deal with him try to be as neutral as I can. His comment that I am arguing with him is an example of how this editors feels he owns some aspects of Misplaced Pages. I could care less about Jytdog's opinions;I care a great deal about editors who are treated to his incivility because this impacts people and Misplaced Pages as a whole. If he wants to pursue a ban of any kind; he should go ahead. I would advise against it given my experience with him.(] (]) 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC))
	* Again, violetriga has a serious OWN problem that they can name but cannot control. I am looking for a preventative block to underline the importance of them managing this. The misrepresenting etc are issues for other boards. ] (]) 18:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	**I think I'm being rather restrained given the barrage of abuse you are giving. I don't have issues with people who properly discuss things. Your solution is to block and ban anyone who disagrees with you. It appears to me that you have a lot of history fighting fringe-pushes. For that I applaud you, but you appear too quick to label other people that way. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 18:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	***You provide no diffs of "barrage of abuse". This is just rhetoric - speech intended to persuade, with regard for truth, much less evidence as is everything else you have written here.
	***The actual diffs are clear, regardless of the words you write here. Admins will do as they will, but you should be blocked, preventatively. You are showing no signs that actually you understand that your behavior is not OK even though you were able to articulate that you have an OWN problem. ] (]) 18:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	****I don't present diffs because I don't want to spend my time looking through your edits, not because such evidence does not exist. That is supported by Littleolive oil above. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 18:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	*****I don't want to be sucked into your game but it all started when you came along and tore the article apart with edit summaries like "remove crap" and "incompetent citation". You did not try to engage in discussion, you just pushed your view. That's not a good start to a collaborative editing relationship. You yourself have since shown ]. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 19:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	*****Thanks for making it clear, that all you are doing is making unsupported aspersions. The behavioral issues are very clear here. ] (]) 20:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	******You would say that, just as I would say that I have found your comments and your tone to be dismissive, confrontational, and rude. My behaviour has not be ideal and I apologise for that, and you will note that I have not done anything but discuss for quite some time. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 21:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	******** I appreciate your apology, and that you stopped edit warring while this thread is open. I have no confidence that you will not immediately recommence once this closes, just as happened after the April ANI thread was closed. You went right back to the same behavior. ] (]) 21:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	*********My actions or lack thereof have not been influenced by any of your reports but instead by discussion with (mostly other) users. As talk page discussion keeps going there are further gains being made and the article is once again looking like it has good coverage. Some of that is down to you, some is the interaction with others. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 23:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	**********More speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. This is the fourth example I have now of you turning into a pussycat when light is shined on your behavior at a notice board. If I have to file another one of these that pattern will be very obvious to everyone. ] (]) 09:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	***********Wow, you really have nothing better to do. I didn’t change my stance after your other reports so now you’re just making idle threats implying that you have some sort of dossier built against me. You’ve really lost your focus. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 11:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' No action. There is a well-structured discussion on the article talk page. If there was an actual revert war on the article, it does not seem to be continuing. ] (]) 17:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Camila Cabello}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Miaow}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{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)}} ""
	#

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

	'''~~Diff~~ of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1265080353\|00:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* ChasePlowman2014 edit warring */ new section"

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	User:Miaow appears to be insistent upon an edit war which I have tried to resolve. I have responded to her questions on my Talk page, her Talk page, and the Talk page of the article in question, all of which has been fruitless. The user has made several disruptive edits, undoing true and factual information I have updated the infobox of the artist whose article is in contention. The user initially claimed the issue was with a lack of sources, which I responded to. The user then stopped responding to me, and when I went ahead to update the article (with references this time) in addition to listing several more references on the article's talk page, the user came up with another arbitrary metric. The problem is the metric in question (awards shows) is incredibly arbitrary and pales in comparison to the many other (multiple concert tours, articles from respected publications, live broadcasts on television and radio shows, multiple YouTube videos) when it comes to gauging the notability of an artist's use of an instrument.

			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)
	This has resulted in the user making 4 reverts in just over 24 hours and they show no interest in resolving this.
			:{{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)
	] (]) 18:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 16:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	:There is no 3RR violation and you need to reach consensus to your edits, Alolanle.
			**Whilst I cannot dispute ChasePlowman2014's behaviour for edit warring, Happily888 is not completely without fault here. Neither user made any particular effort to engage in discussion over a relatively minor issue, but to expect an immediate response (and then immediately banning said user) on the 25th of December, a day of the year when one can reasonably be expected to be a little busy, is overzealous. I have also left a response to Happily888's message on the ] explaining why ChasePlowman2014 was, arguably, correct to make the initial edit before Happily888 made the first reversion. -- ] <small>(] \| ])</small> 21:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The user left on my talk page, and he didn't wait my answer cause he edited the article before i replied to their. So i left my reply on the article's talk page today. I told to the user and why we can't add their edits and that i will restore the infobox waiting for more comments about it (until consensus is reached about their edits) but now he undid my edit again and they report me here. I don't want problems because of this.
			**:{{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)
	:I have lost interest in the article since the user doesn't want to wait for consensus. I will no edit their change. Best regards. --''''']''''' 23:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|NeilN}} Thanks for your suggest Neil. Of course a third opinion would be good but can someone restore the ? All the best and thank you. --''''']''''' 23:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	{{u\|Alolanle}}, you neglected to notify {{u\|Miaow}} as you are required to do. I have done so for you. Both of you are at three reverts (consecutive edits count as one revert) so any more reverts on either side may result in blocks. I suggest asking for a ] to get more input regarding tthis dispute. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Page protected~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Collaboration~~ ~~in German-occupied Poland~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~E-960~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Callmehelper}}

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

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# ~~revert1.~~		#
	# ~~revert2.~~		#
	# ~~revert3.~~		#
	# ~~revert4.~~		#
	# revert5 (of different content - however E-960 has reverted this tag placed by {{ping\|François Robere}} previously without providing a quotation - and other editors supported a quotation for it - e.g. ).
	# revert6

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' appraised by {{ping\|Slatersteven}} he had broken 1RR. See AE record below on this article by this user as well.

	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' - discussion open (quite lively).

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Article placed under 1RR due to ARBEE sactions by {{ping\|NeilN}} . Disputed content (in reverts 1,2,3,4,6) is a rather broad generalization regarding Jews based on initially a collection of blog posts, and now brief coverage in a couple of low impact journals - content has been objected to by multiple editors, and ONUS has not been met for inclusion - it also misrepresents sources such as they are (interestingly, E-960 has admitted lack of coverage of this "taboo" subject - ). User previously had 1RR issues on the article and let off with a warning - and a voluntary restriction . User indicates 1RR awareness in , in , and . User has also made comments directed (NPA/ASPERSIONS) at other editors, e.g.: . To summarize - multiple 1RR violations, and reverts 4,5,6 all violate 3RR (revert6 being the 5th revert in 24Hrs, 4,5 4th reverts)] (]) 19:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	: RE comments below - I will note, the most of the reverts above were not of my edits, but rather of {{ping\|Slatersteven}}, and {{ping\|François Robere}}. The two AE filings vs. E-960 (links above) indeed did not conclude with a sanction (beyond a voluntary restriction) - however in both cases there was a violation of the technical rule ending with: {{tq\|"E-960 needs to be more careful when reverting"}} (after another editor said he undid some of E-960's edits by mistake and E-960 corrected that mistake), and {{tq\|"E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours"}}. I chose to file here and not in AE as this will probably be examined by NeilN, and because this is a straightforward edit warring report (and in hindsight, possibly the two prior reports should've been filed here). As for consensus, the interpretation of consensus below by E-960 is not inline with the English Misplaced Pages's policy (in some foreign language wikis there is a "stable version" (not that there is clear there is one here) - but that is not English Misplaced Pages policy) - and there is no consensus on the talk page to include this sweeping generalization in the article.] (]) 20:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	:: As for the hagiography comment, the full sentence was - {{tq\| In this case the text inserted is making a sweeping generalization, with hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering based on cherrypicked incidents from low impact, and mainly ignored, publications}} - a comment on the text. I do, of course, recognize the Polish losses during WWII - I was commenting on a particular piece of text inserted into Misplaced Pages.] (]) 21:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<u>'''Comments by e-960:'''</u> <br />
	This topic is currently under DISSCUSSION on the article TALK PAGE: . The reverts that user Icewhiz listed were of changes which were made WITHOUT gaining a prior CONSENSUS, while the discussion was still in progress, and thus reverted (pls see the Edit Summary of each revert). The rules clearly state in the Active Arbitration Reminder notice placed in the article that: '''With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.'''

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Also, user Icewhiz's behavior can be interpreted as ''']'''. In the past 3 weeks, user Icewhiz filed two 'Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement' reports against myself , and ] , both of which were DISMISSED as lacking merit and did not result in an action. Now, using the same questionable approach, user Icewhiz has moved on to the 'Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring' filing more reports alleging misconduct by other editors. Pls notice this example which illustrates exactly what user Icewhiz is doing — he states in the original complaint: ''"E-960 has reverted this tag placed by François Robere previously without providing a quotation - and other editors supported a quotation"'', but please notice that the tag NEVER ASKED for a quotation, it stated: {{verification needed\|reason="Members of" or "collaborators with"? The movements included hundreds of thousands, not millions of members; 25% of the population is several millions\|date=May 2018}}. So, after VERIFYING the source, I placed a note in the Edit Summary that this information was located on page 140. Again, the tag never asked for a quote (there are tags that specifically ask for that {{Request quotation}}, however this was not one of them), but user Icewhiz in a manipulative way is trying to mischaracterize what the tag placed by François Robere actually asked for. Another good example is revert1 that was listed by user Icewhiz, which simply restored longstanding text (with reference sources) that was removed by user François Robere, and per rules stated above that's not a violation of anything. As for the alleged 1RR violation made by me regarding user Slatersteven, pls notice the actual FULL CHRONOLOGY of the edits: first here user Slatersteven changed the text with out consensus , and here I reverted those changes as they were not agreed to on the talk page , then again here user Slatersteven restored his original edit . Yet, user Icewhiz is alleging that I broke the 1RR rule? So, I would request that maybe the ADMINS who were involved in the past (], ] and ]) are brought in to assess this situation and help out with sorting of facts, as they may be already familiar the specific nuances involved.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	Finally, I would like to raise this point, and bring to everyone's attention that user Icewhiz's comments can and do at times come across as anti-Polish. Just today, to disparage some of the content that was being discussed user Icewhiz made this statement: '''"hagiagraphical depictions of Polish suffering"'''. I find it extremely TROUBLING when such comments are made during a discussion on the Holocaust. --] (]) 20:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on ]. ] (]) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''<u>Comments by GizzyCatBella</u>'''
	*{{userlinks\|Icewhiz}} has been reported here ] (]) 20:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}} Looking at the history, if {{u\|E-960}} is blocked then at least one other editor needs to be blocked as well. As the current restrictions don't seem to be working, I will be implementing the dreaded "consensus required" restriction. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	:: How is it any different from ? Why did you got with a page block here, but a personal sanction there? ] (]) 12:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|François Robere}} I wasn't the admin who blocked you. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	;Pages: {{pagelinks\|Parvatii Nair}}, {{pagelinks\|Neerali}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Yourmistake}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}} <br />
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}
	# {{diff2\|843088613\|20:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Yourmistake. (])"
	# {{diff2\|843088111\|20:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Yourmistake. (])"
	# {{diff2\|843087004\|19:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Yourmistake. (])"
	# {{diff2\|843086581\|19:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): Adding unsourced . (])"

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
	# {{diff2\|843088818\|20:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Yourmistake. (])"
	# {{diff2\|843085908\|19:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by Let There Be Sunshine: Cast order was mohanlal,parvati,nadiya etc,,, why did you change it? latest trailers n posters clearly shows the cast order why did you changing it then? pls give a solution. (])"
	# {{diff\|oldid=843077573\|diff=843083371\|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC) to 19:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|843083194\|19:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Reverted ] edits by ] (]): Pls explain why did you change official poster and credit list? (])"
	## {{diff2\|843083371\|19:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "OFFICIAL THEATRE POSTER OLD VERSION"

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ ~~/ 3RR warning~~:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# ]
	# {{diff2\|843088646\|20:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ].
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

	;<u>Comments:</u>
	For administrators, this user is the newest sockpuppet of ], a hardcore ] fan. The user is now edit warring with me to place the actress's name on top of '']'' cast order, also removed mass content (all dreadful films from her filmography table) from her article. The former socks were blocked after struggling to remove the same (a discussion can be seen ], his then sockpuppet was ]) as well as for other edits regarding the actress. Calicutspecialist is suspected of maintaining COI with actress (again see that discussion), and Yourmistake also almost admits that he maintains COI. This person has this trait of requesting full protection for pages while edit warring, right after making a blind revert or a problematic edit (so that his version stays if fully protected): Abhinand1234 - , , ; Calicutspecialist - , . Yourmistake does the same thing (multiple times) - , , ; , ; , ; , (current). The user just wants to promote the actress, and takes whatever it costs, even making a fool of himself . I can file a more detailed SPI if necessary.] 22:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|indef}} ] <sup>]</sup> 22:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 60 hours) ==

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] and ]
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|List of terrorist incidents in April 2018}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|112.200.72.225}}

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|843119382\|00:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
			:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|843116316\|00:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|843049758\|14:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|843049344\|14:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|843045901\|13:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|843023796\|10:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|843023681\|10:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Grail Movement}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Folawiki}}
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			# {{diff2\|1265465790\|02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*{{AN3\|b\|60 hours}} by {{u\|Ohnoitsjamie}} ] <sup>]</sup> 03:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1265465049\|02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265464033\|02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265459461\|01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 60 hours) ==
			# {{diff2\|1265461000\|01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1265464521\|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* December 2024 */ ] notice"
			# {{diff2\|1265464576\|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1265465123\|02:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Briarcrest Christian School}}
			# {{diff2\|1265464764\|02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "{{re\|Folawiki}} The whitewashing has to stop. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|70.240.153.210}}

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

			Cult whitewashing. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|843134520\|03:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "/* =History */false references and inaccuracies in text"
	# {{diff2\|843134284\|03:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "fixed number of campuses"
	# {{diff2\|843134055\|03:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "/* History */deleted inaccurate text"
	# {{diff2\|843130015\|02:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "no longer active"
	# {{diff2\|843129601\|02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "No longer active"
	# {{diff\|oldid=843121880\|diff=843127729\|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC) to 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|843124137\|01:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "added content"
	## {{diff2\|843124308\|01:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Fixed typo"
	## {{diff2\|843127729\|02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "There is a person who is putting false and vulgar information on this page. Requesting for this page to be deleted."
	# {{diff\|oldid=841638236\|diff=843118925\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC) to 00:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|843118629\|00:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "took out outdated and false information."
	## {{diff2\|843118765\|00:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "took out outdated and inaccurate information."
	## {{diff2\|843118925\|00:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "All references are inaccurate and totally made up."

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|843128480\|02:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	*{{AN3\|b\|60 hours}} by {{u\|TonyBallioni}} ] <sup>]</sup> 03:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1265432813\|22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
	# 04:01, 27 May 2018
			# {{diff2\|1265165246\|13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."
	# 06:19, 27 May 2018
	# 08:32, 27 May 2018
	# 09:10, 27 May 2018‎ with edit note {{tq\|I could tell you the exact wording right here and right now. If you are going to lie and say it isn't there when it is, I will have to revert you. Don't be paranoid and accuse others of wickedness when you haven't even really checked the source. It is there. I could tell you the exact text right here right now.}}

			*Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' about adding unsourced content and following BRD;
			#
			#
			#

			#
	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' , where this person has already contibuted. In fact, he self-reverted until he puts in what consensus the discussion comes up with.


			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			# - putting fake sources/infomation
			# - putting fake sources/infomation

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	This is an FA and ScepticismOfPopularisation has been very disruptive and come very close (and past) 3RR before as a quick scan of the article history will show you. They are not hearing that aggressive editing on a high profile FA is completely not OK. They appear to have the The Truth; that last edit note, about says it all. ] (]) 09:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
			#
	:Very well. I will revert myself for the time being (that is, until we settled this after discussing). What edit note are ypu talking about? The only reqson I reberted you is because you are incapable of checking the sources competently. Multiple times you asserted the sources don't contain something they do.] (]) 09:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	::I will call admin's attention to {{tq\|for the time being}}". The intention to continue edit warring could not be more clear. ] (]) 09:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	:::Seeing flying hares will do nog good to anyone. Ajust clarified what I meant in parentheses.] (]) 09:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	::::Also, I was going to start a discussion-didn't know one was already started.] (]) 09:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	See also ] for the same "intention to continue edit warring":
	{{talkquote\|SInce, I "made my reverts in a series on edits; this makes it count as only two" thi sis only my third rvert, thus I did not break 3RR (which requires ''more'' than 3 reverts). Please don't revert your edit back per ].] (]) 15:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)}}
	] -] 10:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	* This user appears to be abusing Misplaced Pages for the purposes of proselytising. A topic ban may be appropriate. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	::1. A tooic ban will prevent me from discussing 2. None of my edits are "proseltysing". I virtually always cite reliable soirces, most of them secular, and secular authors of course don't proseltyse.] (]) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	::::Joshua, that edit was made when I didn't understand 3RR, amd has nothing to do with this discussioj.] (]) 11:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	::: We have a term for someone who will be prevented from editing by a topic ban: ]. That's usually indicative that someone's interest in Misplaced Pages is ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	::While much of my edits are related to a topic, they are more or less helpful, and we, of course edit what we choose. There is a reason editors don't edit in some areas and edit in others. Editing around a topic does not make one a single-purpose account. Nevertheless, I will take up the idea of spreading my range of topics.] (]) 12:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Regarding ''"that edit was made when I didn't understand 3RR"'': you were blocked for edit-warring at ] at 23 may. The moment that block ended, you started edit-warring again at that article, for which I warned you . You , with the edit-summary ''"Archiving nonesense."'' I , writing ''"Blanking your talkpages is not a good sign... You're lucky that you made your reverts in a series on edits; this makes it count as only two."'' You reverted again, after which I posted at your talkpage: ''" three..."'' So, I think you were already quite familiair with edit-warring, and the Wiki-policies in this regard. ] -] 14:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	===Second case===
	Add ].

	ScepticismOfPopularisation prefers

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* Two consecutive reverts:
	:* . (Removed maintenance-tags without addressing them; and broke a reference)
	:* . Removed sourced text, from source they provided themself. Edit-summary:
	:{{talkquote\|Broken ref. Also can't access source.}}
	:They broke the ref themselves. And they can't access a source which they provided themselves.
	* . Removed the maintenance-tags a second time. Edit-summary:
	:{{talkquote\|You see, I accessed this source through a non-literary work which quotes only this quote. Either way still does not fir failed verification criteria. Also should you be aslo abel to access this yourself if you are able to cite material from the same page?}}
	* . Removed the maintenance-tags a third time. Edit-summary:
	:{{talkquote\|Very well. Dubious is only used whn doubtimg the SOURCE's accuracy, and neither of us do. We ar eonly alllowed to sue the failed verificatiin template when we have actually checked the source-and it is inaccessible for you, and largely inaccessible for me save for this quote.}}
	:The "failed verification" tag was already replaced by a "dubious" tag, which this edit removed. The "which" tag was removed a third time.

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

			:{{u\|TheHappiestEditor}}, please respond to these allegations. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	Discussion: ].

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	] -] 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
	'''Comments'''

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|103.84.130.238}}
	:Already self-reverted. No problemo.] (]) 18:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	::Also, You did not warn me that you felt I was edit warring, so this second case violates Misplaced Pages policy and is unfair.] (]) 18:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:::You also sourced info, for the second time; and I warned you about removing maintenance-tags. And you've already shown that you're very well capable of counting your reverts, so don't say that "this second case violates Misplaced Pages policy and is unfair." ] -] 18:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	::::Ah, but I thought edit-warring is an attitude. Also, I was attmepting to adjust my edits per your requests.] (]) 18:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:::::And is really incredible.First claimimg that Porter states
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262480024\|diff=1265542339\|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	:::::{{talkquote\|this belief in bodily resurrection was at odds with the both the pagan and Jewish customs of that time, thus marking Christians off from all their contemporaries.}}
			## {{diff2\|1265541681\|12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:::::And then, when it turns out that Porter actuallu argues for Greek influences on Jewish thought and Christianity; and refers to three cults from the Graeco-Roman world which propgated a beleif in resurrection; then to start arguing that
			## {{diff2\|1265542339\|12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia "
	:::::{{talkquote\|...we cannot use Porter to support the connection between pagan cultic connections to the resurrection-which is not something consensual scholars like Bart Ehrman would agree with.}}
			#
	:::::First make a big fuss, cherrypicking quotes from an undisclosed source and edit-warring, and then, when the real source turns out to be opposite one's own opinions, starting to question the use of this source. ]. ] -] 18:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Samuel J. Reader}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|FloridaArmy}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|843205051\|16:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Filled in 1 bare reference(s) with ] ()"
	# {{diff2\|843204930\|16:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|843204547\|16:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Edit conflict"
	# {{diff2\|843204081\|16:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Edit conflict"

			Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a warning, but was to report it here. - ] (]) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|843204586\|16:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "/* Edit Conflicts */ new section"
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|843205075\|16:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			== ] reported by ] (Result:Indefinitely blocked) ==
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Editor working on an incomplete article in Article space. I moved the article to Draft space, per ]. This has been reverted a number of times, editor is just ignoring the issue. ] (]) 16:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I may be wrong but as I understand ] once the article creator has objected to the move to draft space (reverting is obviously objecting) the mover must move it back to mainspace and nominate for Afd. ] (]) 16:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	::{{Ping\|Exemplo347}} Also I don't see the obligatory notification on FA's page. Maybe it was removed? ] (]) 17:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I am having ] as well. This user, who has been blocked once already for edit warring, would benefit from 1) engaging in discussions on the article talk page or user talk pages rather than edit warring and 2) be at least a little more open to ] to what is being said. (See ]).–] (]) 17:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Joining the club. This sort of behaviour has been going on for months - see and is one of several worrying aspects. - ] (]) 18:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1265621270\|21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			# {{diff2\|1265402736\|19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Azerbaijanis}}, {{pagelinks\|Samad Behrangi}}
			# {{diff2\|1265399005\|19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Gulejane456}}
			# {{diff2\|1265395466\|18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			# {{diff2\|1265394604\|18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts at ]:
	# Rv 1
	# Rv 2
	# Rv 3
	# Rv 4
	# Rv 5
	# Rv 6
	# Rv 7
	# Rv 8

	;Diffs of the user's reverts at ]
	# Rv 1
	# Rv 2

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	#

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Clear irredentist disruptive pro-Azeri agenda. After his dozenth violation of ] and ], he left me a note, referring to other Wiki editors as "racist Persians". Clearly ]. - ] (]) 16:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== Need a clarification of a 1RR ==

	The policy says:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:"''A "page" means any page on Misplaced Pages, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.''"

	In connection to that, I am wondering if:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	# If removal of some part of the text added to the article long time ago is considered a revert?
	# If removal of two independent parts of the text when no other user is working on that particular section is considered two reverts?
	# Modification of some existing text is considered a revert?

	--] (]) 18:31, 27 ~~May~~ ~~2018~~ (UTC)		Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (]) ] (]) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			* {{AN3\|b\| indef}} Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:24, 27 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

@Napoleonjosephine2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(second IP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

It's me @Callmehelper.

Clarification by my side ;

Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.

Disputes details ;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

TheHappiestEditor, please respond to these allegations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Johnny test person reported by User:ToBeFree (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Johnny test person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265440086 by ToBeFree (talk)"
19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265401281 by Codename AD (talk)"
19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395978 by Codename AD (talk)"
18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395008 by Aoidh (talk)"
18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265382744 by Aoidh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (Special:Diff/1265613452) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. Jauerback/_dude. 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: