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

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

Revision as of 03:50, 25 March 2024 editEvrik (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,476 edits →User:Graywalls reported by User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} (Result: ): new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:27, 25 March 2024 edit undoGraywalls (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,590 edits →User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: )Tag: 2017 wikitext editor Next edit →
Line 366:		Line 366:

	Thank you. --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)		Thank you. --] <sup>(])</sup> 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

			Once I realized one user was inserting much of primary source personal website (whitestag.org), I removed them based on not being based on reliable sources. The ones I re-directed as I did not find it merited stand alone article, I put them threw AfD to seek consensus for re-direct. I believe that's a pretty typical procedure when re-direct is objected and a proper way to do so rather than repeatedly creating re-direct. ] (]) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:27, 25 March 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

User:Softlemonades reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: warned/stale)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:WikiLeaks#RSP#WikiLeaks

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

Comments:

Editor removed citations a couple of weeks ago; two editors opposed the removal on talk. Softlemonades today started edit warring to implement their earlier changes against that consensus. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The first edit was not a revert, I replaced self-published sources with RSes. It did not implement earlier changes. I did not perform more than three reverts.

See What is a reversion? Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.

Editor removed citations a couple of weeks ago; two editors opposed the removal on talk. The other editor did not object, they agreed they could be used before I brought up COPYLINK. And WP:Consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority).

Cambial did not answer on Talk other than to say he would not explain things because my uestions were WP:REHASH. I asked why the self-published sources were needed but no answer. I asked why linking to release page to stolen self published leaks didnt violate COPYLINK but no answer.

Cambial has a history of edit warring on different pages and has been blocked from this page before Softlem (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Softlemonades claim that they did not implement earlier changes is not correct. Their earlier edit was to remove several citations. They removed these same citations again in every later edit (including the first one), as the diffs readily demonstrate. Softlemonades repeated their arguments on talk numerous times in response to other editors. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Softlemonades repeated their arguments on talk numerous times in response to other editors. What other editors?

Asking you to explain your argument is not repeating mine. Not answering is Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors

You just say I see no copylink problem. but do not explain why linking to stolen self published material is not WP:LINKVIO However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders.

The page that indexes it is COPYLINK violation because it hosts the COPYVIO material. There is no need for sources that might be COPYLINK Softlem (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your claims are inaccurate, but regardless, they have no bearing on and are not an excuse for your edit warring against the consensus view on talk. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that Syria Files and Stratfor email leak do not involve third parties is inaccurate Softlem (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

While there is no violation for now, I'm not closing this as both of your third reverts were very recent as I type this, and we should see how this goes. Yes, there's a 2-1 consensus in favor of Softlem's position, but that's from an editor's drive-by comment three weeks ago; they haven't otherwise participated in this very lively discussion. Since the article has been designated as being within a contentious topic, I think I would be within my rights to consider brief full protection on my own initiative, but I'm not going to go there yet as I think the best course of action for the two of you would be to get more editors involved and reach a stronger consensus (preferably through discussions on relevant noticeboards, not an RfC). Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be within my rights to consider brief full protection on my own initiative Support this and making the page 1RR like Julian Assange Softlem (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I requested temporary page protection Softlem (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Daniel Case: The four reverts by Softlemonades - the exact same set of code removed by Softlemonades in the "Previous version" diff they then remove again in the four recent edits - breach the 3RR rule, no? What am I missing? Cambial — foliar❧ 20:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The first diff you link to (the 13:17 one) does not appear to be a revert of another editor's recent preceding edit. It's the edit they were reverting to. The rule is more than three reverts, not more than three of the same edit. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a revert of this edit, which restored the citations after Softlemonades first removed them in the edit indicated as previous version above. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if this were a case of four reverts, having reviewed some of the citations that were removed, there does appear to be a WP:COPYLINKS/WP:COPYVIO here, so WP:3RRNO#5 would apply. For example, the citation to Egads! Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages Disclosed is undeniably a copyvio of the original article by CBS News. I haven't reviewed all of the links, and some of it gets pretty complicated because the copyright of confidential government materials gets pretty complex in some jurisdictions. But it is plausible that other leaks, like the Syria Files or Stratfor emails are copyrighted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The 3RR exception #5 is for clear copyright violations, meaning use of copyrighted material in the article. There is no copyrighted material removed in Softlemonades edit-warred change. The exception is not for external links. There has been no copyrighted material put in the article, and no suggestion - except for an inaccurate claim from the edit warring user - that there is. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:COPYVIO Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to. We are not permitted to link to material that knowingly violates copyright. We can no-more link to the WikiLeaks copy of Egads! than we can to a research paper on SciHub, a copy of a book on LibGen, or a copy of a movie, TV show, or video game on Pirate Bay. 3RRNO#5 covers removal of violating links in all of those situations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I made unrelated revert on the page. I realized it might be 3RR so I tried to self revert, but Cambial corrected first Softlem (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Softlemonades, the exception is about "clear copyright violations", similar to the other exceptions that are for really clear cases. In a situation where the copyright issue itself is under dispute, the situation isn't clear enough for the exception to apply. You have been edit warring, and you'll need to find a consensus about this issue instead. Neither you nor Cambial Yellowing should be the person to assess or implement that consensus. I'm closing this as "warned/stale" as there have been no edits for two days, but if this continues, there will be page protections or blocks, and they won't be removed or avoided by 3RRNO#5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:83.51.42.63 reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: Stale)

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:
Stale Last edits were four days ago. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

User:185.104.63.112 reported by User:Smasongarrison (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 185.104.63.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215052850 by Smasongarrison (talk): It's equally disruptive to feed articles of dependent territories to categories of the metropolitan. Stop now."
20:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215049765 by Smasongarrison (talk): To match similar categories of British overseas territories, overseas France, etc."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Adding incorrect categories on Category:19th-century church buildings in Hong Kong."
21:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Category:19th-century church buildings in Hong Kong."
This one is clearly from the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasongarrison (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Categorization */ new section"
21:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Categories "/* Category request: Category:Legislators by dependent territories */ Reply"

Comments:

Also this one. It's clearly the same IP. . They've also gone over the dispute the renaming of a category and express their opposition to renaming/reparenting. And there has been discussion about this on Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_21#Category:Anglican_church_buildings_in_Hong_Kong Mason (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding incorrect categories Which exactly were the wrong categories added? Also this one. It's clearly the same IP. What? I didn't even know there was such an edit by someone else before you mentioned. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Counter-reporting:

With this message I am filing to counter-report Smasongarrison for edit warring (just click "previous edit" in the diffs he/she quoted above to see his/her earlier edits). He/she forces his/her way to disregard the preexisting consensus that items of dependent territories don't get fed straight into categories for the metropolitan states and refuses to back down. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 3 months as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Bbb23. (And for the record, my pronouns are she or they. None of this he/she nonsense.) Mason (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bbb23 I think that it's the same person who is now posting on my user page. User talk:Smasongarrison#False accusations Mason (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

User:36.73.126.53 reported by User:RodRabelo7 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: IP continues to insist on reverting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h by Amortias.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

User:118.211.170.85 reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Page protected)

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:

Three IPs () all from the same location and likely the same person edit warring over war results at Sino-Vietnamese War Hist: . Language suggests unwillingness to compromise, adhere to WP:RS, and here to POVPUSH: . Qiushufang (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for three months by El C. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Ramirami60 reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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:
The information attempting to be added is conspiracy gibberish sourced to a YouTube video and personal opinions (claiming "censorship on such discussions by the very influential Jewish lobby groups".) It is borderline antisemitic and doesn't belong in the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

thaddeussholto is spreading complete lies about info I have added. I have cited on yt among 4-5 others some are peer reviewed. the yt video is published by a renounced jewish scholar and Rabbi and I have also refrences his organisation's link to show it's not just some random vid on yt by a non scholar. all other citations are accurate and come from jewush and or kabballah and or freemason scholars and or officials, but the reporter is too lazy to read them as they are long, so they resort to yelling "antisemitism", which is ironic as my info specifically talks about such censorship and the harms to Jewish people it poses. Ramirami60 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

They reverted it again but this time added another source that doesn't support any of this. The new edit used this source for the claim "The view by freemasons themselves that Kabballah is the root of freemasonry" when that source itself explicitly says "any historical links are strictly conjectural and unsupported." None of this belongs in the article and they continue to edit war it in regardless. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

User:TheWiseJames reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC) "Corrected and updated."
23:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC) "Updated and Correct after correction being removed. Do not remove correct facts and information from Misplaced Pages regarding the subject matter in question."
22:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) "I updated information missing that is relevant to the subject matter in question."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Agnostic atheism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Requested user discuss concerns on talk page, rather than continuing to add information. TRL (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional edits added - Special:Diff/1215245710 TRL (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE by Discospinster.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:XeCyranium reported by User:LokiTheLiar (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: ~~20:13 20 March 2024~~ 21:45, 14 March 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(note: added afterwards at 04:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC), one below was the original #1) 19:36, 22 March 2024, reverting a clause highlighting American medical orgs in the lead
19:40, 22 March 2024, reverting a different clause in a different part of the article
17:52, 23 March 2024, reverting the same clause highlighting American medical orgs in the lead
01:29, 24 March 2024, reverting the same clause highlighting American medical orgs in the lead

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see edit summary here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This had actually already been discussed on the article talk page, and the user in question continued to remove it even after it was opposed there, which is why I'm coming here for a resolution instead of continuing to discuss.

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

Comments:
Even though this is only three reverts, not four, it is on a page for a contentious topic that's seen a lot of editing recently. (Also I should note: I also made three reverts in this time, but self-reverted the last one and came here when I realized it was the third revert.) Loki (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel I should point out I self-reverted the change to the lead as seen here: and started a talk page discussion regarding the change here: . Aside from that I was under the impression that reverts were measured over the course of a day, not over the course of three. I don't plan on reverting the article again, and as can be seen here: I've been looking for sources for others to reinsert the content I removed in the first place. I realize that a series of reverts over several days can be seen as "gaming the system" to enforce my preferred view, but the only edit which I have repeatedly restored my own version of over multiple days is this one here: , an edit which I assumed correctly had been reverted by mistake, as I was told here: . My apologies if I'm replying in the wrong field. XeCyranium (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like something that should be resolved with an RfC; XeCyranium reverted a recent WP:BOLD addition, and a minor edit war began over whether it should be included or not - all parties were in the wrong, but generally the editor who is editing against the status quo should be the one to initiate dispute resolution once talk page discussion hasn't lead to a clear conclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

~~What WP:BOLD addition are you talking about?~~ While the article text has definitely been contested recently, the stuff XeCyranium reverted has been in the article for a while, as far as I can tell. Here's the list of medical organizations as of the end of last year, for example, and you can also see that although the wording is slightly different there's still basically the same information about the Finnish Ministry starting with "Nevertheless" instead of "On the other hand".

I also realized that I'm missing a diff above and there actually were four diffs: the previous diff to the first one above is also a revert by XeCyranium, albeit to a different part of the article. Loki (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, now I do realize what you're talking about. While the changes to the lead are the main thing being reverted here they're not the only thing, and some of the things reverted in the process of this war were pretty long-standing. See above. Loki (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As noted above. Since discussion on the talk page has remained commendably civil and collegial, I concur with the suggestion above that an RfC might be the best move. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:167.98.155.153 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked one month)

Previous version reverted to: 09:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

167.98.155.153 is a logged-out editor on a crusade against articles on villages having historical population figures. Similar behaviour can be seen in the article history of Mladkov.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

15:39-41, 23 March 2024‎ (UTC) reverted addition of population table and other improvements by FromCzech
16:07, 23 March 2024‎ (UTC) reverted FromCzech
15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reverted FromCzech
16:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reverted Toddy1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Warning on user talk page by FromCzech

That is not an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, is it? Why be so transparently dishonest? 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

The reporting user appears to simply hate IP addresses. They have nothing to do with the article, have no apparent prior interest in it, have not made any attempt to discuss its content, nor even elucidated any actual objection to my edit. The situation was caused by one particular user ("FromCzech") who squats on all Czech town and village articles, reverting any edits they do not like and making false accusations of vandalism to boot. The reporting user evidently did not like my post seeking a consensus about the issues I was concerned with; their comments about "logged-out editor" reveal the motivation behind this bad-faith effort to get me blocked. 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Also note the hyperbolic attacks by the reporting user. "Crusade"? I edited two articles. The user "FromCzech" is on a crusade, to make all Czech town and village articles contravene style and content guidelines. They revert all edits they don't like and clearly believe that they WP:OWN the subject area. But their harmful reverting is fine by the reporting user, because it's IP addresses they have a problem with, not the undoing of edits. 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Blocked 167.98.155.0/24 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Cinosaur reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215368889 by Soetermans (talk) Thank you for your suggested improvements of the lead. Could you please introduce them in the actual text of the lead rather than asking for it to be worked on in sandbox"
18:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215366126 by Ratnahastin (talk) Please present evidence on the Talk page that the reverted addition is indeed "fan-craft" before reverting it."
18:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215363830 by Ratnahastin (talk) Please refrain from reverting edits backed up by WP:RSs. Take to the Talk page and let's reach consensus there whether or not the update is improvement"
17:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215358752 by DaxServer (talk) Discuss on the Talkpage. These are statements by officials, backed up by WP:RS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Expanded and updated */ re"

Comments:

Keeps pushing a 166 thousand characters addition. Three reverts already passed. soetermans. 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, @Soetermans. My concern with your and Ratnahastin's reverts is that they were based on claims unsupported by reliable sources or Wp guidelines that 1) the subject is highly controversial, 2) the new addition was "fancruft", and that 3) the lead was not according to WP:LEAD. As for the single edit expansion, this is how in the past I improved two closely related articles on Bhaktisiddhanta (+44318 bytes) and Bhaktivinoda (+64138 bytes), both accepted at that time by the community as improvements of the articles' encyclopedic value. In this case, too, the proposed expansion was carefully written on the basis of most available scholarly resources and in strict accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. My humble request is, rather than rejecting it offhand and giving it short shrift, please deal with the proposed text in its face value and help improve it. Thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does it take a edit warring notice for you to stop edit warring? You've been here for quite some time and have thousands of edits to your name. Right now, there is clear consensus that what you are trying to add is not okay. Like I said on your talk page, I am not going to do you work you. Again, it is over 166 thousand of characters you added. That is huge. There is no WP:DEADLINE so just work on it on your sandbox. soetermans. 19:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It has already been worked on in the sandbox. The objections you raised about the lead and infobox neither complied with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style nor warranted revisions of the encyclopedic value the expansion added to the article. Please assume good faith and do not disrupt edits that actually improve content. Thanks, Cinosaur (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are you still reverting? How is this not getting through to you? People disagree with your revision. Stop this immediately. soetermans. 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Araboud reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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:
There seems to be a page move war happening too. I moved it back to Dhurma Massacre (1818) as I think that was the original article name. Please revert if I am mistaken. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: )

Pages: See below
User being reported: Graywalls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few days ago, User:Graywalls started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:

White Stag Leadership Development Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/White Stag Leadership Development Program
Béla H. Bánáthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally removing large swaths of content
Boy Scouts of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page
COPE (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion
National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
Philmont Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
Scouting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unhelpful editing

Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds, and moved the discussion to: Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America.

It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:

American Heritage Girls - tagging the article with multiple tags
COPE (Boy Scouts of America) - Nominated for deletion
Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) - tagging the article with multiple tags
National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience - tagging the article with multiple tags
Philmont Training Center - tagging the article with multiple tags
Philmont Scout Ranch - tagging the article with multiple tags

Did I catch it all? I'm not sure I did, It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents, here Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy, and then there is this personal attack in the edit summary. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
I'd like something to be done to make this all stop an allow for a more civil way to deal with this. I myself am travelling right now, and don't have easy access to a computer, so I don't expect to be available again until next week. The following users may be able to help:@Jergen, Btphelps, North8000, and Erp:

Thank you. --evrik 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Once I realized one user was inserting much of primary source personal website (whitestag.org), I removed them based on not being based on reliable sources. The ones I re-directed as I did not find it merited stand alone article, I put them threw AfD to seek consensus for re-direct. I believe that's a pretty typical procedure when re-direct is objected and a proper way to do so rather than repeatedly creating re-direct. Graywalls (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Categories: