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 20:12, 17 November 2008 editTiptoety (talk \| contribs)47,300 edits →Resess reported by Zigger (Result: ): Protected← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:46, 8 January 2025 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,772 edits →User:Sokoreq reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: ): Blocked one week (using responseHelper)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{noadminbacklog}}
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	<noinclude>{{moveprotected\|small=yes}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
	]
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 84		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~72h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	</noinclude>
	__TOC__

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	=Reports=
	:Please place ] {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can the ] for it.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bengali–Assamese script}}
	<!--
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.
	-->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tejoshkriyo}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by ]) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Richard Steel}}.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	{{3RRV\|24.180.21.121}}
			# {{diff2\|1267607323\|21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267598936\|diff=1267605297\|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267604312\|21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
			## {{diff2\|1267605024\|21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
			## {{diff2\|1267605297\|21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "changed page number"
			# {{diff2\|1267593518\|20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
			# {{diff2\|1267529376\|14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Time reported: 2:48 AM
			# {{diff2\|1267605728\|21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			# {{diff2\|1267603474\|21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2024 */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1267607080\|21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- The link above must be to a version, not a diff, and must be from BEFORE all the
	reverting took place. This helps us establish that the first edit, in particular, is a
	revert to a previous version.
	For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. -->

			Makes changes to longstanding version to contentious topic, removes source, doesn't abide by ], keeps edit warring and even when discussion has started in the talk page. Note similar POV removal dated and also the use of minor ('''m''') in some of the edits which are not ]. ] (]) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			:Also note this POV arrangement . - ] (]) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week block) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2010: The Year We Make Contact}}
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Æ's old account wasn't working}}
	:{{AN3\|note}}: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of ]. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) <small>— <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span></small>

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267674154\|04:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			# {{diff2\|1267671902\|04:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Multiple editors also do not support ''your'' synthesised stance."
			# {{diff2\|1267633237\|00:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Something bad is going to happen to all of us if we don't just shut up here. Something terrible."
			# {{diff2\|1267482436\|08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Drop it."
			# {{diff2\|1267472758\|07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Just drop it."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			# {{diff2\|1267479624\|08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1267669527\|03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Page: {{article\|Alexander Litvinenko}}
			# {{diff2\|1267468706\|06:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"
	* User: {{userlinks\|Russavia}}

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

			One editor is repeatedly restoring unsourced content to lead that is currently under discussion on talk page. Including me, two editors have reverted their edits and three editors have objected to the content on the talk page. – ] (]) 04:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:

			:Listen.
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
			:], you started this whole ordeal by reverting everyone's edits without taking any into consideration, and attempting to bludgeon the talk page with your comments. You have also broken 3RR rule multiple times. Now stop please. ] (]) 04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You can make up whatever narratives you want. I think your contributions to the talk page discussion speak for themselves. If you think I have violated a policy, then feel free to provide that evidence. You have also now made 5 reverts in 24 hours . – ] (]) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			* Æ's old account wasn't working blocked for a week. ] (]) 04:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Chance997}}
	* Diff of 3RR warning: This user is well aware of the 3rr rule, his last block lasted two weeks for herassing the same person he's been reverting now.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	{{collapse top\|1=Extended discussion}}
	*And there's more edit warring from Russavia besides the ones that broke the 3rr, you'd only have to check the article history. Apart from that he's being very hard to compromise with, more drama on the talk pages of the users

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	**Yes, this user has been repetedly warned about edit warring:] (]) 16:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
			#
	*There is certainly a ] happening on the article, but may I say that 3rrs are meant to prevent battles rather than punish the combatants. I would rather recommend for the article to be returned to pre-battle condition, locked and guide the parties through ] than blocking anyone. --] (]) 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
			#
	:How nice it is that I get advised of this. The 4th revert is not a revert at all, it is called copy-editing. Additionally, don't forget that both Grey-Fox and Biophys are clearly acting as a tag-team on this article, as can clearly be seen from their edits both on the talk page, and the various talk pages -- not to mention that either they are following each other's edits, or there is off-wiki communication going on. I have attempted to discuss this article with these editors, but Biophys has continued to insert ] information into the article in an ] way; in particular claims that Putin is a paedophile. Notice, I have taken discussion to the reliable source noticeboard, and also notice the thinly veiled warning given by Grey-Fox on the article talk page. ] in order to settle disputes is not the way to go, and as there is clearly tag-teaming going on here, as well as unfounded continual accusations by Biophys both here and via other linked venues (see link below), any block for 3RR clearly needs to be dished out equally, when it is evident these two editors are not acting independently of one another, and I suggest that any admin look at the entire ] and associated articles to show that there is an unacceptable level of ], and any attempt to discuss or implement necessary changes to balance NPOV is called "harrassment". Anyone who is going to insert ] claims in an article can be sure that that particular edit is going to be ''harrassed''. Note in the discussions that Biophys was adamant that the "paedophile" claims must stay in their former ] state, but as soon as a ] version is inserted (which includes information from sources which attack the veracity of Litvinenko's claims), all of a sudden this is no longer relevant. It is clear what is happening here, and I will also pursue this at the relevant arbcom of which Biophys is involved. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
			#
	::3rr is like an electric fence Russavia, you've clearly violated, which is unfair because another user like Biophys is also not allowed to violate 3rr. I of course deny the ridiculous accusations that I work as a "tag-team", I only participated on the talk page discussion and not in revert warring. The single edit I made was completely independent and not made by anyone else before. ] (]) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
			#
	:3RR is not a punishment, its a rule to prevent edit wars and ]s, although there is a potential satisfaction of having your opponent banned, does it really solve the content disputes, it only freezes them. Again I repeat what ''should'' be done, article restored to status quo and locked, WP:DR process initiated. --] (]) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::And my revision of Biophys is completely independent of revision of yours - two completely different issues at play. And I stand by my tag-team comment, or are you both going to explain how you both have managed to find not only all of my posts (such as the BLP board, the RS board , etc - who's stalking who?), and also how Biophys managed to find this post, when a quick check of both of your contribs just now shows no evidence of any notification to Biophys that this has been placed here by yourself. ] clearly comes to mind, and you are both clearly involved in this, and it has to stop. Also, it is generally regarded as courtesy to advise editors that potential administrative action against them is being requested, and I see nothing on my talk page alerting my to this fact, and it is wasn't for an editor shooting me off an email (and no, it wasn't Kuban_kazak to quell that conspiracy theory right now), I wouldn't have been aware of this sneaky attempt by yourselves to punish an ''opponent''. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	::I am afraid to disappoint you, but that is not the case, 3RR is 3 reverts max, irrespective of what is reverted and how. --] (]) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::'''Comment.''' Since Russavia has gone over 3RR, and the BLP situation is unclear, I propose that this case might be closed without a block if Russavia would agree not to edit ] for one week. All editors, including Russavia, would be invited to continue the discussion over at ]. If after discussion it is clear that any genuine BLP violations remain in the article, admins would ensure that they are removed. ] (]) 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::Ed, give me an hour and bit to respond to that would you please. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::Yeah I know that Kuban, and I can handle the punishment on the chin, so long as it acknowledged there is ] and ] occurring here. One need only look at the discussion page, and other venues such as ] to see that there are such conditions here. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	::::Look Russavia I don't want you to take it personal that I report you for 3rr, I've reported many people for 3rr and I've been reported for 3rr myself too in the past. It's nothing personal and I hope you won't take it as such. It has nothing to do with "punishment" but there are certain rules that we need to follow because otherwise wikipedia turns into a mess. I'd say wait for an admin to pop up and rule about the 3rr violation, and if you get temp blocked or not, I invite you to co-operate with making good articles and discuss disagreements with users as well as seek compromises. And no I really do not operate as a "tag team" or anything, I specifically tried to avoid editing that article because I saw you were already engaging in a conflict with biophys, so I tried to participate only the talk page discussion to create some sort of compromise and only made an edit after you already broke 3rr. ] (]) 18:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:::::I am sorry, but '''that was actually Russavia who repeatedly inserted a defamatory information about a living person . So, the BLP rules can not justify his 3RR violation.'''] (]) 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''', I think {{User\|Biophys}} also violated 3RR in the diffs.--] 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	**'''Reply'''. I made only ''one'' revert if any: . That was removal of a defamatory information about a living person when Russavia complained to Kirill and BLP noticeboard that I allegedly violate BLP rules. Note that I also made a self-revert. My last edit was not revert, becasue no one edited this segment for a long time). I would be reported immediately by Kazak, Russavia or others if I violated 3RR rule anywhere.] (]) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	***I have no idea about what's going on between you and the other users' history, but the diffs clearly are revealing more than 1 revert too. Well, those are well referenced (I was shock about Putin's kissing...as reading the contents and sources).--] 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	'''Response to ]''': I can not agree to such a restriction, whereby it is placed on myself and myself alone. As you are an uninvolved admin here, you will be able to look at this objectively, and act accordingly based all of the available evidence. And this should be regarded as an official complaint to an admin from myself as well; the venue of the complaint should be unimportant.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	Yes, I can admit here that I inadvertantly breached ]. It was an error on my part. And now why I can not agree to such a restriction. I have acted in ] with all of my edits relating to this particular article. For this I refer you to ]. The article in question at the time I reverted it stated the following:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<blockquote>
	In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile. He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,. His allegations came after Putin had kissed a little boy on his belly while stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds. Putin commented: "I tell you honestly, I just wanted to stroke him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. There is nothing behind it."
	</blockquote>

			Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	You will note that this has been presented as fact (i.e. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia), and lacks any critical response on the subject from other sources. But the fact that this was presented as fact. The claim was only removed after consulting other venues previous to removing it. The quoted thread above was then immediately posted to the talk page, with very clear reasons as to why, and linked to policy and an ARBCOM from May with further information. And then opened it up to discussion. Whilst discussion is still going on, disregarding both the policy and arbcom decision, . That's blatant BLP violation No. 1. I with quite an apt edit summary, and I mention this to Biophys on the talk page. By this stage, we have all agreed that this information should be placed into the article, and I state that I would work on an NPOV version for discussion on the talk page. Which I did ] and opened it up for discussion. At the same time, I also left a message on ]'s ], asking him for outside opinion; I regard Ezhiki as a knowledgeable admin and editor who is neutral.

			I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	After 2 days, and based upon Ezhiki's assessment of it being NPOV, . We all agreed remember that this claim should be in the article, but aside from presenting the claim, and Putin's denial (which was not in response to Litvinenko's accusations at all), it also included critical information from non-primary sources on the making of the accusation in the first place. And this is where the ''problems'' started. Biophys said information claiming consensus on talk page was to remove it. But consensus was that we should include it (from above). That is Revert #1 for Biophys. I then . Please note edit summaries as well. . That is Revert #2 for Biophys. I . Biophys immediately . That is Revert #3 for Biophys. He . Still on Revert #3 for Biophys. He then , but this is an interesting edit, for if one looks at it, it isn't just Revert #4 for Biophys, but . That BLP violation #2 for Biophys. I then . I then . It should be noted that the part that removed previously read:
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	<blockquote>

	</blockquote>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
	That sentence was in the lead before I got to the article, and it was unsourced. As this . This stayed in the article for all that time, until I tweaked it as such:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ToadGuy101}}
	<blockquote>

	</blockquote>

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Which I added a reference to . Biophys that, to remove the entire sentence from the lead, with an edit summary of "if you tell about accusations in introduction, you should mention what the accusations were about". Why was this one sentence included in the article for months, yet I come in an put in one word, and provide a reference, and all of a sudden this has to be removed. Also, note the edit summary; this is a ] and ] attempt by Biophys to include Putin paedophile claims back into the lead of the article, as it was for some time many months ago. Additionally, this is Revert #5 for Biophys.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Given that Biophys has reverted 5 times and nothing is mentioned for him, and because the most serious and blatant violations of BLP, which is a bannable offence, if I will not agree to not edit the article for one week, as it is evident from Biophys' own actions of reintroducing serious BLP information into the article, not once, but '''TWICE''', after being advised what is wrong with it, if I were remove reinsertion of BLP information of what is a blockable offence, and one which an uninvolved admin needs to look at seriously as per ], I would be held to task and blocked for it. That is the primary reason why I can not in good conscience agree to such a thing. Additionally, in regards to Biophys' ridiculous accusation above, one can clearly see that I have not committed a ] violation, but have rather taken a real ] violation, and presented it in an ] way.
			# {{diff2\|1267771905\|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267757010\|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
			# {{diff2\|1267751151\|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267747621\|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Further info on Grey-Fox and Biophys together to follow, so I would appreciate a little indulgment of time to get that ready -- I shan't be too long. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267751597\|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:Wow, I might as well print out all that and read it in bed. Anyway I'm willing to redraw the 3rr complaint, and ask an admin to just lock the article for a while, given that the reverting already started 2 days ago. ] (]) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267301347\|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"
	{{collapse bottom}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<s>{{AN3\|p}} Fully protected one week. We can't take forever to close a 3RR case. Endless debates belong over at ANI, not here :-). Russavia is definitely over 3RR, Biophys is probably over 3RR (not confirmed in detail). Both editors may, or may not have BLP justification for some of their reverts. Please try to reach a consensus on the Talk page for a neutral version that doesn't violate BLP. ] (]) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)</s>

			User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	Ah... well we've crossed, I just blocked R who is definitely over 3RR. Hmmm ] (]) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:No objection, since a block is formally justified, and BLP policy is pulling so many ways it's unclear that there are any 'pure reverts of defamation' to be excused. Do you have an opinion on whether Biophys also should be blocked? ] (]) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
	:If Russiavia would just say "I follow your suggestion not to edit the article for a week", then this report would be wrapped up soon, and he would've not earned the block; quite silly decision. Biophys is also almost equally guilty of 3RR violation in the situation.--] 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1000mods}} <br />
	::I would revert myself to any version you tell, but the article was protected. I am ready to follow any your instructions, but I did not do four reverts during 24 hours in this article. Sorry for disruption.] (]) 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mindxeraser}}
	: Admins (EdJohnston, William?), why not to cool down Biophys too? He’s just a mirror of Russavia. Putin is absolute good vs Putin is absolute evil... Why not to eliminate these two incorrect views from WP simultaneously at least for a while? And, moreover, look, Biophys continues undoing Russavia edits just 5 minutes after this case “is closed”. Here and here. ] (]) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Please see my comment at Russavia's talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
	:'''Result.''' After three admins took a shot at this, we have a harmonious verdict: Russavia blocked 24 hours, Biophys warned, and the article unprotected. ] (]) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	For the admins who were involved in this block case, I am alerting you that Biophys has entered evidence into an active arbcom case, which you can view . The decision was made to block myself for ], but only warn Biophys, even presented with evidence of breaches of ] and violation of ]. I have no idea who did or didn't make that decision, but this will now be asked about on the arbcom. It was mentioned at above that the decision is harmonious, and that the discussion is a ''relic'' (for the record, I stand by all of my comments in that particular section). As one can now see, it is not harmonious, nor is it a relic. I was going to post a message on your talk pages before the arbcom development asking as to why there is "one rule for some, and one rule for others" and enter into discussion that way, but given the arbcom development it is now necessary for me to address this, what has now become an issue, on the arbcom. Sorry about that, but I don't believe there is any other way, and do not perceive this as a revenge or anything of the like because it is not, I am actually trying to sort these problems out outside of resolution structures. Anyway, this is just a heads up to advise you that I will be entering into evidence at the arbcom the relevant 3RR case and everything thereafter, so you may wish to put it on your watchlist, and respond to it if and when appropriate. Cheers, --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (result: wrong forum) ==
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	The article is ], which is currently protected. This is a long-standing edit war. , however, SteveWolfer claims that . SteveWolfer persists in reverting without discussion. Extensive explanation on talk page meets with no response. His position is basically demolished in the talk page; his comments there never substantively addressed those of others. Enormous effort has gone into this already, and it is now obvious (at least to any who read the talk page) that the issue will not be resolved without administrator intervention. See for a summary.

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	So, please, HELP!—]<sub>]]</sub> 10:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	: No vio, wrong forum. You want ] I think ] (]) 10:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	::This is the forum for edit-warring, right? Sure, there is not 3RR, but there is no non-3RR edit warring forum, and the ] page makes that forum seem only less relevant to this case. ''We need admin assistance here.'' I have already put way too much work into this. I have talked too much already, writing hundreds or thousands of words to an unreceptive audience; talk has ''proved'' futile. There is no way for me to get anything done now. The only way to "make a better encyclopedia" is with administrator assistance. This is an edit-warring user. The fact can be verified with some effort, although much less effort--hour upon hour--than I have put into trying to reason with someone transparently unwilling to listen. Please, help! I can't do it! I simply don't have the power! Anything you ask me to do--short of pointing me to ''a forum where admins offer to intervene''--is something that won't work! —]<sub>]]</sub> 12:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
			{{AN3\|b\|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::I understand your frustration, but you really are at the wrong place. Looking things over, it looks like Coren is familiar with the your case. He's a genuinely helpful admin, and reasonably harsh when harshness is the appropriate remedy. I would take your appeal directly to him, and then follow his advice about proper dispute resolution.—](]) 12:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~indef~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fernanda Torres}}
	* Page: ]
	* User: ]

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	]
			# {{diff2\|1267808569\|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
			# {{diff2\|1267807858\|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267807213\|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806982\|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806103\|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:Blocked 24h. ] ] 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267807698\|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
	::Correction: Indef, as obvious sockpuppet of ]. ] ] 09:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267808131\|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h ) ==

	* Page: {{article\|Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Luka Jačov}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Old version: (first 5 rv); (subsequent rv's)
			{{AN3\|b\|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :
	*Rv :

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
	*Warning:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Csknp}}
	Not a literal 3RR vio, but slow protracted revert-warring over many days, sterile 1+ rv/day. Note that warning was also given under ]; general sanctions like revert paroles etc are possible. ] ] 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
	:'''Comment.''' If this were closed as a simple (non-3RR) edit-warring case on any random article, a 24-hour block would be justified. Since the topic falls under ], I would recommend no block, but instead a one-month topic ban from all articles related to Greece or Macedonia. I notice that one-month topic bans have been previously given out to other editors, as listed at the bottom of the ] page. If no other admins comment, I'll proceed with this later today. Since this is an edit-warring case we are under less time pressure, so I've notified ] of this discussion. ] (]) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
	:: Thanks; if I may add a (sort of involved-perspective) opinion here, maybe a revert parole might be better? This is a relatively new contributor who I have the impression has some legitimate things to say and ideas to provide, but he needs to find a way of doing so without revert-warring. Trouble is, his English is also rather poor. ] ] 19:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:::This guy has been around longer than I have. While not the best of evidence; his block log contains numerous blocks for 3RR. I have gone ahead and blocked him for 24 hours. The reverts have been going on for a while now and he knows that he should use the talk page and not edit war. Anyone can feel free to unblock and proceed with other ways of reducing the damage though if I have been over-killing the situation. ]] 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::Blocked again for 48 hours. Made the identical revert at ] directly after his previous block expired. ] (]) 05:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (result: 12h) ==
			# {{diff2\|1267452946\|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			# {{diff2\|1267525585\|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* Warning:
			# {{diff2\|1267644988\|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
	November 13:
			# {{diff2\|1267646582\|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"
	November 14:
	Is this edit warring or just poor judgement of genre placement and capitilization of genres. I left a short notice on this persons talk page and then told them not to edit that anymore and made one more edit (the last edit) after that.
	<font face="Kristen ITC">]]</font face> 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	: ''2008-11-14T19:39:38 Nixeagle (Talk \| contribs \| block) blocked XX-V-i-V-Xx (Talk \| contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Edit warring: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=251819878#XX-V-i-V-Xx_reported_by_HairyPerry) (Unblock)'' ] (]) 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267699885\|diff=1267736737\|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Thanks for the clarification. Thanks, <font face="Kristen ITC">]]</font face> 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
			This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
			: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} (by {{u\|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	* Warnings: ,
	*Reverts today alone:
	:November 15:
	:November 15:
	:November 15:
	:November 15:
	:November 15:
	:November 15: (possible sockpuppet as this address has one edit and is removing the same material.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	*] has been removing sourced material on the ] article. This has been going on over a time period, starting in August, 2008. ] has been removing sourced content without adequate explanation in his edit summaries and will not engage on the article talk page or his own talk page. There are several attempts at communication on ]'s talk page. Thank you, —] (]) 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
	::{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} For edit warring. ] (]) 04:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* Page: {{article\|Edward Talbot}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Tony May}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th
	* 6th
	* 7th

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	:{{AN3\|p}} by ] which, to be frank, is pretty lucky for the edit warriors since I was about to block at least two of them. ] (]) 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 12h each) ==
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	* Page: {{article\|University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|ShareHare}}

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

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has made no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	12h for SH and T2D4 ] (]) 10:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
			# {{diff2\|1268002110\|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* Page: {{article\|Diplomatic missions of Ireland}}
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* User: {{userlinks\|Kransky}}

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

	* Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

	* 1st revert:

	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

	* 6th revert:

	* 7th revert:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Diplomatic_missions_of_Ireland&oldid=249726400

	(listed in reverse chronological order; earlier reverts exist)



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

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

	Please see ]

	Redking7 argues that because Ireland does not have diplomatic missions with Taiwan, ] should either (a) not list a quasi-Irish government office in Taipei which performs de facto governmental services, or (b) list the office with a disclaimer about Irish non-recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty and exclude the Taiwanese flag. I have also said that we name countries according to how they identify themselves (although I said I would not pursue the matter since it was a rule that was not consistently upheld).

	I have repeatedly told Redking7 that we include such unofficial missions in these articles as they essentially perform the same duties as diplomatic missions and take direction from Governmental authorities. Whereas I had first considered that the office perhaps was not directly supported by the Irish Government, another editor then provided a link to the office, and it appeared to have some de facto legitimacy (eg: visa form downloads, the same phone/fax numbers as those listed by the Taiwanese ministry of foreign affairs).

	I repeatedly asked Redking7 to discuss the changes on the category page, including the principle that quasi-diplomatic missions are excluded from these articles. I said I had an open mind on the matter, but any rule applied here should apply to all other articles in the Diplomatic Missions by country category, and not just for Taiwan but for other states with recognition or nomenclature issues. I warned him that if we were to keep these articles consistent to I would need to make several chagnes that could lead to other people expressing countering views. He said to the effect it was none of his business what went into the other articles. In turn I said it would be unreasonable for a new editor to drive a signficant policy change, but not put in the hard yards of making all the substantial edits that would be required - and to defend them when others will inevitably complain.

	This attitude makes it hard for me to believe he is editing in good faith. No doubt he has similarly negative views about me. But I think we both would like some guidance on the matter. ] (]) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:'''No action.''' This is not a 3RR case, but an edit-warring case. Though Redking7 appears stubborn, so does Kransky. (They are the main participants in the edit war). Any block for edit-warring would have to be given to both. I suggest following the steps of ]. For instance ] or ]. Since the question of how to deal with diplomatic missions in quasi-countries is of wider interest than just Taiwan, perhaps you can find a WikiProject to get advice from. ] (]) 04:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Quantum of Solace}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Wikiteur}}

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

	* Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

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

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	User has been changing British terminology on article ] despite being directed to ] and the note on top of the ]. <font color="DarkGray">...</font> ] <sub>]</sub> 03:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:{{done}} - However Discompinster, I should note that you are not totally in the right here. The first two edits were edits against the prior consensus (I'm going on a wing and saying that the talk page note was put there as a result of a prior discussion. I did not actually check). However the other two edits are simply removals of the link, not changing from uk english -> us english. So... your report here is only half right, and in reality I think you could have backed off and let him have the word delinked while discussing it with him on the talk page or his userpage. —— ''']]'''</font> 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	::Oh geeze, you gave him '''vandalism''' warnings! I don't see a single comment asking him to discuss his changes on the talk page. I'm not quite sure that Wikiteur is a vandal, merely misguided. —— ''']]'''</font> 04:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::I first left a note (not a warning) on the user's talk page and I also requested that user see the talk page in my edit summaries and . <font color="DarkGray">...</font> ] <sub>]</sub> 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Badger}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|201.31.242.162}}

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

	* Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert: (He made minor changes, but it's still a revert)

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

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning: .

	He also had a 3RR warning on his older IP address: ], under which he reverted several editors during October, for instance: , , , .

	He has a predilection for the version that begins "Although uncommon to be eaten today in the United States…" I'm obviously too involved in this lame edit war to consider blocking him myself. (How did I get sucked into it?)  —]]  10:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 12h) ==

	* Page: {{article\|House of Bunić/Bona}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|User:Debona.michel}}

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

	* Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

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

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	] (]) 11:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	: 12h. You managed to confuse me by posting a warning that post-dated the reverts. However there was an earlier one too ] (]) 13:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Paul Pantone}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Resess}}

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

	* 1st revert: 2008-11-16T14:27:06 UTC to by Resess
	* 2nd revert: 2008-11-16T15:12:45 UTC to by Resess
	* 3rd revert: 2008-11-16T23:37:23 UTC to by Resess
	* 4th revert: 2008-11-17T12:48:47 UTC to by Resess


	* Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-11-16T23:52:25 UTC

	Related: ], ], ]

	--] ] 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

	:Diff of 1st revert should be . --] ] 15:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}} As such a block at this point would be clearly punitive. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:46, 8 January 2025

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, 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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
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)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
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:Tejoshkriyo reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
2. 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
3. 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "changed page number"
20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bengali–Assamese script."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ new section"
21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

Makes changes to longstanding version to contentious topic, removes source, doesn't abide by WP:BRD, keeps edit warring and even when discussion has started in the talk page. Note similar POV removal dated 10 December 2023 and also the use of minor (m) in some of the edits which are not WP:MINOR. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Also note this POV arrangement . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Æ's old account wasn't working reported by User:Notwally (Result: 1 week block)

User being reported: Æ's old account wasn't working (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
04:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267669354 by Notwally (talk) Multiple editors also do not support your synthesised stance."
00:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Something bad is going to happen to all of us if we don't just shut up here. Something terrible."
08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267479503 by Notwally (talk) Drop it."
07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Just drop it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."
03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

06:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"

Comments:

One editor is repeatedly restoring unsourced content to lead that is currently under discussion on talk page. Including me, two editors have reverted their edits and three editors have objected to the content on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Listen.

Notwally, you started this whole ordeal by reverting everyone's edits without taking any into consideration, and attempting to bludgeon the talk page with your comments. You have also broken 3RR rule multiple times. Now stop please. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You can make up whatever narratives you want. I think your contributions to the talk page discussion speak for themselves. If you think I have violated a policy, then feel free to provide that evidence. You have also now made 5 reverts in 24 hours . – notwally (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Æ's old account wasn't working blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked one week)

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:

Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "a ] containing an ] alien ]" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words "red-striped black hedgehog" at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the fictional hedgehog in question). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, User:Carlinal and User:Barry Wom, citing MOS:OVERLINK as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at Sonic the Hedgehog 2 to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:ToadGuy101 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: ToadGuy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267757647 by CipherRephic (talk)"
14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267751974 by John (talk)Stop whining about him"
14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267747738 by Czello (talk)"
13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2024 United Kingdom general election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

Comments:

User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Mindxeraser reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)

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:
Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 reported by User:DandelionAndBurdock (Result: /64 blocked two weeks)

User being reported: 2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Blocked – for a period of two weeks The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Csknp reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Page already protected)

User being reported: Csknp (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:

01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio

Comments: This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. Vestrian24Bio 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... Vestrian24Bio 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected (by BusterD) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:5.187.0.85 reported by User:Darth Stabro (Result: )

User being reported: 5.187.0.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102408 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102323 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102267 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268101988 by MrOllie (talk)"
04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268074482 by MrOllie (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(31 December 2024)
(6 January 2024)
(7 January 2025)
(8 January 2025)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 January 2025)

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

Comments: The user was warned multiple times to not insert poorly sourced contentious material in a page which is a living person's biography. Despite this, the user has made no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Sokoreq reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: Blocked one week)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Cambial Yellowing (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"
18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267995628 by Hipal (talk)"
17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hipal (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "3rr"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: