Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:19, 28 July 2010 view sourceEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,230 edits →User:Ariana310 reported by Ali Khan (Result: ): See a related SPI report← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:16, 15 January 2025 view source Dawnseeker2000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers486,847 edits →User:2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: ) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
]
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 136 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude> }}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
{{Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}
__TOC__
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Olivia Rodrigo}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: see note) ==


*'''Page:''' {{la|Complementary color}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Slomzy0932}}
*'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Dougweller}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION YOU ARE ASKING FOR


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to: - DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE PREVIOUS VERSION
# {{diff|oldid=1268642187|diff=1268970122|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268969880|11:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|1268970122|11:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# (cur | prev) 21:00, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Changed protection level of Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)) (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC))))
# (cur | prev) 20:59, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Protected Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)) (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC))))
# (cur | prev) 20:37, 18 July 2010 Arakunem (talk | contribs) (5,108 bytes) (Undid revision. You MUST discuss this on the talk page. See the New Messages left on your own talk page.)


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


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT - YOUR SYSTEM ISN'T VERY USER FRIENDLY


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


Excessive and unsourced genres. Warning at ]. See also, which Twinkle isn't including: (initial edit), , , , and . Edit warring over multiple days. ''']''' • 11:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 16:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
So as you are aware there are a few users including users that you have bestowed "Administrative" priviledges to who for some reason insist on providing incorrect information to the world on this subject. They have blocked and locked down the page of course with their erroneous information in place. At the same time these "lovely people" (I use that term loosely) have the audacity to accuse ME of being the vandal and of edit warring. Certainly there is something you can do to remove these people from Misplaced Pages and not allow them to carry on their abusive behavior. Other vandals included in this consipiracy are as follows: Taroaldo, Arakunem, Administrator Bart133 and Administrator DougWeller.
*:Left CTOPS notice on talk as article has been semi-protected since last November. ] (]) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
*'''This: ]''' is your user talk page where people leave you messages. Those messages include links as to why your edits kept getting reverted, and links to where to go to discuss them. Please also click ''']''' which will introduce you to the Misplaced Pages user interface if you are not sure how or where to do something. Thanks! ]] 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Indonesian cuisine}}
**'''Please check out the link above''' as Arakunem suggested. ] is the page you need to be commenting on, not here. Editors will try and help you understand WIkipedia policy there. ] (]) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Malayologist}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Thank for you help but I think I now understand the policy here just fine. If you are one of the "in-crowd" when you get your little hall Monitor/Administration designation you get to be a big ole, nasty, rude bully without any consequences. The novice user is SCREWED! I am, however, open to accepting apologies. comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:Looking at the drama above, I think the only thing you should be open to at this moment is a ban for disruption. Sorry to put it so bluntly. --] (]) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1269033903|18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""These are all poorly sourced" sources are taken from the respective wiki pages for each dish. They are properly sourced. The Arab, Indian, and Chinese sections were not even sourced, and you're okay with that."
# {{diff2|1269021132|17:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Please note that there is more to the story than just Upin Ipin. I kindly request that you review the entire content before making any changes. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from reverting the edits solely because of the inclusion of Upin Ipin, as it is only one aspect of the broader context."
# {{diff2|1269015313|16:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Sourced"
# {{diff2|1269004089|15:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Sourced: Ramly Burger and Roti John also popular"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Ragib's comment is an excellent example of the "pack mentality" that I've had to deal with in relation to this issue. People like Ragib who aren't even part of the conversation or effected by the issue jump in with rude inflammatory remarks trying to make the issue worse than it already is. This is actually in violation of Wikipedias policies referenced in the section "Please do not bite the newcomers." These people don't just bite. They tear at the jugular. Someone like Ragib should be blocked if not permanently banned from Misplaced Pages. comment added by ]
# {{diff2|1269031551|18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
*{{AN3|n}} &mdash; The reporter, {{User|Architecture and Interior Design}}, was blocked by {{User|Toddst1}}. However, another admin, {{User|Dougweller}}, protected ] (the article in question), and later, the blocked user was unblocked. As an uninvolved admin, I would have only blocked {{User|Architecture and Interior Design}} and left the article unprotected had {{User|Architecture and Interior Design}} been properly warned of the 3RR (due to multiple editors reverting the user's edits). Otherwise, it looks like this is just a new user getting frustrated. :\ --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks. Just to clarify, I'm also uninvolved with both article (despite claims above, I've never edited it) and editors, I simply found A&ID's case here and acted. A&ID hadn't been warned and I preferred to stop the edit warring without blocking a new user in any case. I thought a 24 hour block would give time to stop the edit warring and help the new user. ] (]) 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Now that this has been reviewed and ruled on can it be removed from this page? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
# {{diff2|1269033781|18:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Malaysian "influences" */ new section"
:'''In due time''' it will be archived and become part of the historical record of this page. --] &#x007C; ] 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1269033887|18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Malaysian "influences" */"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result: Silly ) ==
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Caesarion}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|67.237.113.168}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Peace}}
<!-- 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. -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|159.146.51.112}}
All edits consist of changing the section heading from "Son of (a) god", which I originally wrote, to "Son of God". Even if the first one was not a revert, successive ones are. (Some earlier reverts were to "Son of G-d".)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().


''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1269051964|20:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268989837|13:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268792423|15:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")</small>


* Diff of warning:


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




<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Afraid not. I believe the editor to be the topic-banned {{userlinks|WillBildUnion}}, (see also ]), so there's little point.


Already given multiple warnings ( and ) on ], yet behavior ongoing. ] (]) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
—— ] ] 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}. ] (]) 21:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
*]. IP blocked, not really edit warring, more stupidity. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
**Maybe it is what you mean, but it looks as if you're calling AR silly, and I don't think that is what you intended. Could it be changed please? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 08:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
:*]'s block of the IP for disruptive editing looks good. Arthur did not go past 3RR. The 'silly' probably means that the dispute should have been presented sooner for admin attention. See the which includes this article. (The ban was enacted at ANI on 3 July 2010). Though checkuser did not confirm this IP to be a sock of WillBildUnion, the dispute here is an instance of WBU's original research, which he is . if this problem continues in the future, I suggest a one-month semiprotection of the talk page. ] (]) 17:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe this, I just responded to the sockpuppet thing, but really so you "administrators" recognized that I was not his sockpuppet and continued anyway? And now you are editing me out because of wildbillunion's research? I did my research myself (and there was an old post with my ip not bills) and I have countless books,papers,notebooks,and notepages I have accumulated on the subject. So it is settled you are censoring ideas. If a person posts in support of Caesar(ion) Christ he is a sockpuppet and banned from posting in the Discussion section of the Caesarion article. This is a double edged sword for me, I hate that I had to go through this, I am glad to know someone is interested in similar research! Is wildbill one of the Caesar=Buddah people? I don't agree with that conclusion but I am also weak on Indian history and I try not to "close my ears to truth". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Scott Ritter}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: IP warned) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List_of_psychic_abilities}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|70.139.234.122}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Time reported:''' 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1269047798|19:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rollback to last version of this article approved by senior wikipedia editors, please go to talkpage and build consensus before further edits"
# {{diff2|1269046014|19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) That is your opinion, take it to the talkpage to build consensus before any further reverts, and please remember Misplaced Pages policy on ]"
# {{diff2|1269040838|19:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) No ] please - take it to the talkpage to build consensus for your claim"
# {{diff2|1269040051|19:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) This will have to go to the talkpage, as at the moment it is looking like a concerted attempt by certain editors to whitewash a sexual offence. The current edit is absolutely ridiculous, making it look as if Ritter knew he was speaking to a police officer. To the talkpage."
# {{diff2|1268728980|06:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) No consensus reached on this on the talkpage, and this lead already approved by multiple senior editors"


''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
{{diff2|1269047181|19:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on Scott Ritter."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# <small>(edit summary: "/* T */")</small>
# {{diff2|1268633627|19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard}} "/* Scott Ritter Biography - Noncompliance with MOS and BLP Guidelines */ new section"
# <small>(edit summary: "/* T */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* T */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* T */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* T */")</small>


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* 3rr warning:
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ] (]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


:Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 20:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
—<div>]<p style="margin:3px 5px 0 5px;float:left;font-variant:small-caps"><sub>]</sub><br/><sub>]</sub></p></div> 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article) ==
*{{AN3|warned}} ] (]) 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Twelfth Night (holiday)}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|RobinCarmody}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Macedonia}} and {{pagelinks|Economy of the European Union}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Diven83}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to: ,
#
#
#
#
# (added since this report was filed)


Edit-warring over "Macedonia" naming, breaching Arbcom-imposed ]
;on ]:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
;on ]:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


Warnings given: , '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Note that the reverts back to the consensus version are exempted from the 1RR per the Arbcom ruling.


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
] ] 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
: Update: user has continued reverting against multiple other users, currently at 5R at ]. ] ] 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Result''' - Blocked 48 hours. ] (]) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|English Defence League}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Not a 3RR violation, but definitely slow-burn edit warning. RobinCarmody has repeatedly edited in redundant, clumsy and ] phrasing into the sentence. I have explained why I don't think it is necessary or valid on the talk page. He is free to disagree of course, but a resolution cannot be reached by avoiding the dsicussion. After 20 years on Misplaced Pages he should know the ropes by now. ] (]) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Verbal}}
*Indefinitely pblocked. In addition to the edit-warring, the user's failure to discuss their edits on the article Talk page is concerning. Also, the user should use edit summaries, particularly when reverting other users. The user has some 16K edits, of which just a bit over 4% include edit summaries. Edit summaries are not required, but many unexplained edits are looked at with suspicion.--] (]) 16:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked for 24 hours) ==
<!-- 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. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Murder_of_Wong_Chik_Yeok}}
Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Janessian}}
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


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


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
# {{diff2|1269257936|20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


The use has claimed he has not breached 3RR ] and has said he is not interested (I assume to my sugestion we let community decide ] He is also aware of the 3RR rule as he has warned me that I might break it ] therefore it seems that he beeives its a rule for others, but not himslef, to obey.] (]) 16:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*The first edit is not a revert, I added two wholly original sources that were not yet included and further sourced the content. The second and third edits were reverts of the removal of well sourced content and valid RS references. The fourth edit was not a revert as I made an entirely new compromise consisting of both sourced descriptions of the group. There were therefore two reverts, and will not make any further reverts to the page. However, I do not object to the page being locked at the current version to stop well sourced material being removed. This is a content dispute and should be addressed in the usual way. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span>
**To clarify my "not interested" remark, it is SS I'm not interested in. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
::I may have mis-understoof the 3RR rule but I was under the impresion it meant any edit that undid another edds work http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=English_Defence_League&diff=next&oldid=375529577]] is the page before the first eddit, Verbal clearly undoes my edit. thelast edit partly restores the page to a version verbal prefers, thus is a partial revert, it restore material my self (and others) deleted.] (]) 16:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


User:Janessian is repeatedly removing the same images. By my count they have manually reverted 6 or 7 times. ] (]) 20:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comment''': We could do with the reviewing admin having a look at the talk page activity around the above referenced reverts. Some general advice would be appreciated. If the page is to be locked then it should be at the last consensus version. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
*Fair enough, but that would be the version before this controversy started, and would have to be the "single-issue political organisation" version. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
*:Please do not abuse the rarely used revert during protection. It's only protected for three days; surely you can live with whatever version is there for that short time. -- ''']''' 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:The more reliable reference says "quasi-political", which seems to cover all the angles. ] (]) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:<s>{{AN3|b|twenty-four hours}} -- ''']''' 19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)</s>
:{{AN3|p}} Protected instead. Verbal still appears to have violated the three-revert rule, but there is a lot of edit-warring on the article, and it is improper to block someone and protect the relevant article. -- ''']''' 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:: Based on the discussions on both Verbal and slatersteven's pages, there's significant question as to whether or not this actually was a 3RR or even an EW situation. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''</span>]) 20:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:::In what sense? Verbal clearly reverted four times, although the fourth revert is not the one mentioned in this report. -- ''']''' 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
::::I have done no such thing, and Tariqabjotu did the right thing by changing his mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
::::: Oh I see, he's attempting to make a ]. This is very poor behaviour from an admin. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::: I would ask you to stop beating a dead horse, but I don't think there's even a dead horse to beat. I haven't the slightest idea what your issue with me is, and similarly I don't have any issue with you. -- ''']''' 20:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


I had in fact already decided to block before this report was filed. ] (]) 20:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


== ] reported by ] (Result: p-block) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Phillip E. Johnson}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Freakshownerd}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2010: The Year We Make Contact}}
<!-- 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. -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Æ's old account wasn't working}}
Previous version reverted to:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert: (minor, but occurred following the 3RR warning linked below)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1269290040|23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop simping for Metacritic!"
# {{diff2|1269289340|23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) That sentence is unsourced. Get over it."
# {{diff2|1269285767|23:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop."
# {{diff2|1269177396|11:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Don't start."
# {{diff2|1269138638|06:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Omitting the sentence entirely like what we have done with ] I feel might be the best strategy, seeing as both films have wildly differing RT and MC scores."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1269289036|23:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
# {{diff2|1267674454|04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2010: The Year We Make Contact}} "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<u>Comments:</u>Please also note that the user responded to my 3RR warning an inappropriate accusation of on my talkpage. <br />


This editor was banned last week for 7 days after 5 reverts about this same content (). They have now made 5 reverts again today, the first day that their block ended. They have barely contributed to the extensive talk page discussion, where other editors have been working towards a consensus. – ] (]) 23:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] (]) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{AN3|nv}} Freekshownerd's reverts are exempt from the three-revert rule, in accordance with the ] policy. I agree that the material he is reverting is very controversial to the point that it sounds like editorializing. Please discuss on the talk page the information repeatedly being added. -- ''']''' 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:::It's controversial to note, with multiple sources, that AIDS denialism and creationism are out of the mainstream? ] (]) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
::::No; that's not the problem. The primary concern appears to be that Mr. Johnson may not actually deny that HIV causes AIDS, but that he feels further research should be done to investigate the issue. From what I can tell, that seems to be what the sources actually say. Worse, you're synthesizing sources -- sources that talk about the general idea of HIV denialism -- to heavily imply that Mr. Johnson is a psuedoscientist. I see that the claim has been in the article for a long time, but it's persistence in the article doesn't make it right. The issue is of great enough concern that I believe it should be hashed out on the talk page. -- ''']''' 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::As I've stated in my comment on your talk page, I didn't write this article; I was merely trying to restore a consensus version. There are three separate secondary sources in the article stating that Johnson promotes HIV/AIDS denialism. That's not simply my opinion, and it's not my synthesis of the sources. Also, I (the previous authors of the article, actually) do not imply that Johnson is a pseudoscientist (he's actually not a scientist at all); they state that his opinions on AIDS and creation are considered pseudoscience, as they most verifiably are. Per ], this statement must be made; it is done concisely and with references. As for the talk page, I have attempted to hash out the issue there, only to be subject to incivility. ] (]) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


:Yes, I will discuss the issue on the talk page. Getting a little impulsive with these reverts. ] (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) ==
::You are already at 5 reverts on the day your block for making 5 reverts about the same content ended, and now you are also sending out 3RR notices to other editors such as me (despite me only reverting twice, as there were 2 other editors who also reverted you today). The talk page discussion has been ongoing for over a month, and I think your contribution there so far speak for themselves. – ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You only seem to focus on my contributions to reverting the changes, not my contributions to the talk page discussion. If you want this edit war to end, best you stop by on the talk page to do some civil discussion. ] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Æ, you made ] to the talk page discussion three minutes before writing this reply. You aren't really in a position to demands others "stop by on the talk page" when it took four reverts from three different editors before you did the same. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I guess my ADHD brain thinks reverting is better than discussion on the talk page. At this point I don't even know why I keep edit warring. Maybe I have inherited this "bludgeoning" from my father. Don't know anymore. I just don't.
:::::Help me. I don't think I can take it anymore. I have gone mentally insane. ] (]) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's difficult to say why any of us edit war, but you're not alone in it. I think the best option is to just ]. Consider ] or finding another article to work on in the meantime; ], so keep doing that. Find something that ]. Just remember, ]. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 00:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Problem is, all of my edits get reverted. I can't figure out why. I am stuck in a permanent edit war on every article I touch, whether I like it or not. HELP! ] (]) 00:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::All of them. On every article I edit. All of them get reverted. ] (]) 00:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::That's not entirely true; looking at ], I see many edits that were not reverted. In any case, you should consider reversions an opportunity to ]; ] and explain your edits. You may learn something to keep in mind for the future, or you might teach something to someone else. It's always better to respond to reversion ] than with ]. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Understood. ] (]) 00:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Do you even take my edits into consideration? ] (]) 00:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*Since Æ's old account wasn't working cannot keep himself from reverting on this article even after having been previously blocked from edit warring at the same article, I've partially blocked him from the article for a month. If he gets talk page consensus for the disputed edits prior to the block expiring let me know and I'll lift the block.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 range blocked) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Asian American}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ecko1o1}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2025}}
<!-- 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. -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2600:1001:B129:3A84:31C2:67F3:252:DDAA}}
Previous version reverted to:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: (the user claims they came into agreement with Elockid, but looking at both of their contrib records this is not demonstrable, Elockid actually reverted an identical edit a few minutes earlier)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1269301065|00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269301010|00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269300981|00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269300846|00:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269300458|00:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269300407|00:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269300369|00:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269300275|00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269300228|00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269300185|00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1269300108|00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1269300306|00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This user is bent on imprinting their POV on to this page, and they have made that declaration (see ). There is no consensus over what Ecko1o1 is trying to do. I have even talked to an admin Elockid on the matter, and he agrees what he is putting on this page is wrong. It is also to note that the type of information Ecko1o1 is trying to put onto the page is already found in the terminology section and has no need to be in the lead. After pressing 'Save page', I will be reverting his fourth revert and then staying away from ] until this 3RR violation report is processed


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Also it should be noted that this user has made multiple racist personal attacks against me (see and ). Please take those incidents into account when looking at this case.
] (]) 22:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC) */64 range blocked by another admin.--] (]) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*'''Result''' - Blocked 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. I hope this kind of thing does not continue. ] (]) 04:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result:No violation ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
{{Archive top}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|St Kilda Football Club}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jevansen}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Scuderia Ferrari}}
{{ph|St Kilda Football Club|http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=St_Kilda_Football_Club&oldid=373392272}},


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
The person keeps reverting the opening paragraph to a lesser detailed - less factual and biased view that is cleary biased and not a balanced point of view.
# {{diff2|1269468204|21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1269467160|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1269462212|20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Fixed discrepancies made by user Lobo151"
#
#
#
#


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1269466345|20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers ]"
Warned the user before - be on its talk page.
# {{diff2|1269467260|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording ]"


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Rephrasing for nothing to get edit numbers up a really bad issue on here. How many people live to edit others added info for edit numbers?


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


<u>Comments:</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] ] 21:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
I find it curious that ], who is an indefinitely blocked editor, is making a report on here. Of course he usually makes his regular - and always spurious - reports using his IP address. The main problem is that this user believes he has some kind of ownership of the article. The second problem is that he contantly adds far too much detailed and repetitive information in an often poorly written manner with all sorts of grammar, punctuation, spelling and MOS problems which need constant correction by myself and others. He also vandalises other editors' user pages with fake warning and block notices. It should therefore be clearly obvious who the real problem editor is. His misuse of this noticeboard is just another example of his frequent bullying tactics. ] (]) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Pudukkottai}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*'''Comment''' - This report is not formed correctly: no evidence of 3RR violation as it is. Should be filed properly or closed... ] (]) 08:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:*{{AN3|noex}} Two of the diffs presented are ten days old. ] (]) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Note''' - The of this report was subsequently blocked for 3 months as a sockpuppet of ]. ] (]) 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Afghanistan}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ariana310}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1269501838|00:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=1268811016|diff=1269371545|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) to 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1269370583|09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|1269371545|10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1269502083|00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Hi, I made a small change in ] and provided reliable source as well as explained my reasons at ] then {{User|Ariana310}} appeared and started replying in a rude tone, deleting my sourced edits and calling me a pro-Pakistani POV pusher everywhere. Ariana310 violated 3rr after I warned her and refuse to stop deleting sourced content.--] (]) 08:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:See also the history of ] ] 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:See link to my request to have the page protected ] and that request's denial ]
:] has already made the same complaint in ]. I am copying my response:

:It's not only me who finds ]'s edits as POV and confusion, but other users too agree with me on the same point. , , and , reverts by two different users ] and ].

:] is overly-emphasizing on Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, while skipping and ignoring more important and healthier relations with other countries. He/She is trying to show off the Afghan-Pak relations to be friendly and without any tension, and is relying purely on one-sided and unreliable sources. A wikipedia article should have a '''balanced approach'''; we cannot focus solely on a single country.

:I have added reliable sources for the reverts I made and for which there weren't any prior references: in and . The rest of my edits were removal of pure POV, for example in .

:I would also ask ] to show exactly where have I made personal attacks on him/her in ]. ] (]) 09:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

::Ariana310, the section is fine the way I edited the Afghan-Pak relations and you may add as much as you want about the relations of other countries. Afghanistan's relations are more with Pakistan than any other country so that's why it is the way it is in the section. Afghan President often says that Afghanistan and Pakistan are inseparable, and he speaks for the nation. Relations between two are not determined by others, they are determined by what the government of these 2 nations state on their official websites. I don't need to further explain all this you can do your own searches, as a matter of fact that is what Afghan government say and you delete their website. That is Afghanistan's official foreign ministry's website you keep deleting. The ruling people of Afghanistan are Pakhtuns and they view Pakistan as their second country because 28 million Pakhtuns make up Pakistan. The capital of Pakistan sits inside Pakhtun territory even thought it is not considered part of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Punjab. It at least tells you that Islamabad, the cultural capital of Pakistan, has heavy Pakhtun influence.--] (]) 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:::I am afraid most of the above is your personal POV. Of course, both governments put friendly texts on their website, but what is important is what the media says. And I provided a reliable scholarly reference on the issue of the long-lasting tension between Afghanistan & Pakistan from the Journal of International Affairs of the Columbia University ( where is says: ''"Since 1947, serious differences and tensions have existed between the two respective governments at various phases of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations."''), but you removed the whole sentence along with its reference: . ] (]) 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - "Do not continue a dispute on this page." The last two posts especially are related to content, which should be discussed at the appropriate talk pages. Was 3RR violated here by either editor? That question is why you two are at this board. Be patient and let it be processed; and "talk it out" elsewhere, please... ] (]) 10:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
::'''Endorse the above comment''' - this content dispute has been spread across ], here, my talk page (a bit), and the article talk page. Please consider ] or ] if you really, really can't just work it out on the article talk page. Recommend a bit of calm, a lot of respect for others' points of view, closing this and pursuing better avenues to resolve the dispute. &nbsp;]] 11:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': I . It's clearly a content dispute, and any administrative action would be more appropriately considered ''here''. I ''endorse'' the above comments by Doc9871 and Begoon. In particular ] appears to be an excellent suggestion. ] 12:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
::I filed this report because Ariana310 violated 3rr. Let's just focus on that please.] (]) 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result:Warned, and will monitor ) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|HTC Desire}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Darth007}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:
:Note: User has indicated that they are well aware of ].

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
As an involved user, I cannot sanction this user myself but their tiresome reverts to a copyrighted image violating ] have to stop one way or another. A block might not be necessary at this stage but review by an uninvolved administrator, maybe with an "official" warning, should be helpful in this situation. Regards ''']]''' 10:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}} Hasn't reverted four times within a 24-hour period, but formal, template warning left as an uninvolved administrator. ] (]) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elizabeth I of England}}

'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|SwordBrethren}}

'''Time reported:''' 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# <small>(edit summary: "/* Religion */ About the increased severity of persecution of Catholics")</small>

# <small>(edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Church settlement */")</small>

* Diff of warning:
* Diff of previous warning
—]]] 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|twenty-four hours}} -- ''']''' 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Mb: 48h; Bi: 24h) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Art student scam}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mbz1}}

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: 16:58, July 26, 2010
* 2nd revert: 17:13, July 26, 2010
* 3rd revert: 11:43, July 27, 2010
* 4th revert: 12:07, July 27, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

At ], and below that, I state that I came to the article from ], where I had seen a question about a magazine article written by Christopher Ketcham. I looked him up and determined that Ketcham is quite notable, having published in a wide swath of mainstream magazines. Another editor there thought Ketcham deserved his own Misplaced Pages biography—he was that accomplished. I went to the ] article and brought the Ketcham piece into the text, adjusting what was already written to include his conclusions.

This is where ] began the string of four total reversions, each time taking out the Ketcham piece. I started a talk page discussion but Mbz1 did not take part in it. Instead, Mbz1 began a poll asking other editors whether the article should return to the condition it was in before I arrived. ] (]) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Users MBZ1 and others appear to be ganging up to whitewash the article of references to Israel described in detail in sources that have been determined to be reliable. MBZ1 also reverted the revision of RomaC.] (]) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


"Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." Both editors were edit warring. Protection may be needed but both should suffer the same consequences if ti is deemed appropriate.

Reversions by Binksternet:

# <small>(edit summary: "Restoring the Ketcham piece as very reliable journalism")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Restoring my version as it addresses both possibilities, that the Israeli art scam may be a spy ring, and that it may be a simple scam.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 375643734 by ] (]) I see no consensus among involved editors. Can you point out how you arrived at that conclusion?")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Restoring per ]")</small>

—] (]) 20:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by Mbz1===
# The article in question undergone a and was kept as no consensus with the condition of removing POV.
# The discussion on the article is ongoing So far 6 editors voted to keep an old version, and only 2 to re-write it.
# according to ].
#There are many POV issues and the sourcing in the revised version.Here's only one example: "Fox News Channel included aspects of the scandal in a series discussing potential Israeli espionage in the United States. These included allegations that Israeli agents had also penetrated military bases and other government offices" The reference given to that statement is like that: {{cite video | people = ] | date = December 11, 2001 | title = ] | medium = Television | publisher = ] | time = 2:10}}</ref> , linked only to Misplaced Pages articles, and not to the program itself. I could provide more of the problems by request --] (]) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{AN3|bb}} There is clear evidence both editors edit-warred and that they were the primary edit warriors on this article. However, Mbz1 has a much more prolific block log, so I blocked him for forty-eight hours, while only blocking Binksternet for twenty-four. I think if these two can quit claiming various ArbCom cases support their edit warring and realize what they're doing is simply... well... edit-warring, this can be resolved amicably. Okay, probably not, but I'll give them a chance. Subsequent blocks/sanctions will, obviously, be significantly greater, especially for Mbz1. -- ''']''' 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment by RomaC''' ] tried to bring some policy-based sense to an article basically being managed by a team of editors. As things heated up, Binksternet tried to reason with Mbz1 on his Talk page. Mbz1 with a "not interested" summary. Mbz1 then turned on Binksternet on the article Talk, notched several drive-by endorsements from comrades, then reverted to a weeks-old version of the article. He was reverted by two different editors. Clearly Mbz1 was the disruptive and uncommunicative editor here, we should not allow him to drag down another editor. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment by Shuki'''
I don't understand why the different treatment here. Besides that Mbz1 was editing according to consensus, Binksternet is a supposedly veteran editor was blocked 2 times for edit warring before this one. Edit war is an edit war. --] (]) 01:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment by Preciseaccuracy'''
Apparently, MBZ1 has been blocked between 7-9 times in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mbz1#Blocked
] (]) 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2010–11 Manchester City F.C. season}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry}}

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



Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: Blanked whole section.

<!-- 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. -->
I attempt discussion here: ]

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
So far this user has failed to discuss this issue in the wider community to gain concensus. I've tried my best to settle this through discussion, without biting, but consider it a failure. The main ] article has these types of change reverted almost immediately by many others (including myself). The official source is here , albeit a little out of date, but no other reliable sources exist. I believe his video source to be invalid in this case, as it's pre-season. They may well have a shock when they have the ability to edit the main article and try this. I may be in error, but welcome a resolution. Thank you for your consideration. ]] 20:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Result''' - Warned. The discussion at ] suggests this editor is planning to keep reverting to get his own version into the article, regardless of what others think. ] (]) 02:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

*'''Page:''' {{la|Croatian language}}
*'''User:''' {{userlinks|Mir Harven}}
Mir Harven is engaged in a slow but long-running edit war to censor the linguistic lineage of Croatian, despite all evidence and common sense. He appears unable to separate this issue from his political/nationalistic priorities. The consensus, based on a huge number of reliable references, is that standard Serbian and Croatian are registers of a single dialect, that the inclusive term for them in English is Serbo-Croatian (at least, that is the name we are currently using for the article), and that therefore this should be reflected in their classification. Mir Harven also has problems with civility, since his arguments have not convinced the rest of us, but for now I'm concerned with stopping the edit war. — ] (]) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}} -- ''']''' 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jerzeykydd}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Talk page consensus supports the inclusion of individuals who have been speculated as presidential candidates in reliable sources in the past six months. The above user continues to remove an individual that meets the criteria, simply because of his POV that the individual cannot run, completely ignoring the valid references.--] (]) 21:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|b|twenty-four hours}} -- ''']''' 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Afghanistan}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ariana310}}

Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Ariana310 is disruptive, she is edit-warring with everyone and pushing POV. This request was first skipped so I made a new one.--] (]) 07:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
:Ariana310 has opened a case at ] which argues that this IP is a sock. He is in fact editing from the range {{rangelinks|119.73.0.0/20}} which was blocked for three months on April 5 due to {{userlinks|NisarKand}}. The latter was indefinitely blocked in 2007, and ] shows he has been socking vigorously since that time. I'm looking at the SPI report to see if the rangeblock should be extended. An SPI clerk has given their support to Ariana310's conclusions on grounds of ]. ] (]) 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

== User:Miacek on page Iran-Iraq war==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Iran-Iraq War}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Miacek}}

] 1. I think he made ] here in by inappropriate use of the term ]. He did provide wiki-link to the term he used and hence he should have been aware of the meaning. 2. The user did violate ] rule on the page ] (please see . or , , ). ] (]) 13:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:With just 3 rverts, I did not violate that rule (besides, I think this rule does not cover reverting vandalism, such as your adding Kuwait as combatant on Iraqi side). Xashaiar is a user who has been POV-pushing on this article '''for years''' . <br>Although the ] so far has been that the US (let alone Kuwait!) did not fight along the Iraqis as their cobelligerents, this user keeps propping up from time to time to add the US and the Arab League (and in some edits, also the Soviet Union and even Kuwait!) as combatants along the Iraqis. <br>In the course of the months, has been supported by a bunch of IP editors (might be his socks, might not be; cf. particularly ) + plus recently another ].All other established users keep removing this stuff , , , , , . <br>This is clearly a case of falsification and POV pushing. The users have presented '''no''' sources, no information on the US troops supposedly fighting alongside Iraqis in battles simply because there are none. That the US forces defended Kuwaiti tankers both against Iranian and Iraqi threats did not make them a cobelligerent of either side, they remained a third party. Dixi. ] ] 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:16, 15 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    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)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    User:Slomzy0932 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Olivia Rodrigo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Slomzy0932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 11:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 11:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 11:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Excessive and unsourced genres. Warning at User talk:Slomzy0932#January 2025. See also, which Twinkle isn't including: (initial edit), , , , and . Edit warring over multiple days. Amaury • 11:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Malayologist reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Page: Indonesian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) ""These are all poorly sourced" sources are taken from the respective wiki pages for each dish. They are properly sourced. The Arab, Indian, and Chinese sections were not even sourced, and you're okay with that."
    2. 17:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Please note that there is more to the story than just Upin Ipin. I kindly request that you review the entire content before making any changes. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from reverting the edits solely because of the inclusion of Upin Ipin, as it is only one aspect of the broader context."
    3. 16:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Sourced"
    4. 15:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Sourced: Ramly Burger and Roti John also popular"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Indonesian cuisine."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 18:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Malaysian "influences" */ new section"
    2. 18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Malaysian "influences" */"

    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:159.146.51.112 reported by User:Snowycats (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: Peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 159.146.51.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269002318 by NJZombie (talk)"
    2. 13:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268644937 by Remsense (talk)"
    3. 15:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268644937 by Remsense (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Already given multiple warnings ( and ) on WP:3RR, yet behavior ongoing. Snowycats (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Luganchanka reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Scott Ritter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Rollback to last version of this article approved by senior wikipedia editors, please go to talkpage and build consensus before further edits"
    2. 19:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269045641 by NatGertler (talk) That is your opinion, take it to the talkpage to build consensus before any further reverts, and please remember Misplaced Pages policy on WP:Edit warring"
    3. 19:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269040492 by NatGertler (talk) No WP:Edit warring please - take it to the talkpage to build consensus for your claim"
    4. 19:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269039619 by NatGertler (talk) This will have to go to the talkpage, as at the moment it is looking like a concerted attempt by certain editors to whitewash a sexual offence. The current edit is absolutely ridiculous, making it look as if Ritter knew he was speaking to a police officer. To the talkpage."
    5. 06:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268635595 by Hemiauchenia (talk) No consensus reached on this on the talkpage, and this lead already approved by multiple senior editors"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Scott Ritter."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard "/* Scott Ritter Biography - Noncompliance with MOS and BLP Guidelines */ new section"

    Comments:

    Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:RobinCarmody reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article)

    Page: Twelfth Night (holiday) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: RobinCarmody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    5. (added since this report was filed)


    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:
    Not a 3RR violation, but definitely slow-burn edit warning. RobinCarmody has repeatedly edited in redundant, clumsy and WP:POINTy phrasing into the sentence. I have explained why I don't think it is necessary or valid on the talk page. He is free to disagree of course, but a resolution cannot be reached by avoiding the dsicussion. After 20 years on Misplaced Pages he should know the ropes by now. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Indefinitely pblocked. In addition to the edit-warring, the user's failure to discuss their edits on the article Talk page is concerning. Also, the user should use edit summaries, particularly when reverting other users. The user has some 16K edits, of which just a bit over 4% include edit summaries. Edit summaries are not required, but many unexplained edits are looked at with suspicion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Janessian reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: Murder of Wong Chik Yeok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Janessian (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:

    1. 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Janessian is repeatedly removing the same images. By my count they have manually reverted 6 or 7 times. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    I had in fact already decided to block before this report was filed. JBW (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Page: 2010: The Year We Make Contact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 23:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269289591 by Notwally (talk) Stop simping for Metacritic!"
    2. 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269288727 by Notwally (talk) That sentence is unsourced. Get over it."
    3. 23:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269182473 by Barry Wom (talk) Stop."
    4. 11:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Don't start."
    5. 06:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Omitting the sentence entirely like what we have done with The NeverEnding Story I feel might be the best strategy, seeing as both films have wildly differing RT and MC scores."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 23:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2010: The Year We Make Contact "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"

    Comments:

    This editor was banned last week for 7 days after 5 reverts about this same content (link). They have now made 5 reverts again today, the first day that their block ended. They have barely contributed to the extensive talk page discussion, where other editors have been working towards a consensus. – notwally (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, I will discuss the issue on the talk page. Getting a little impulsive with these reverts. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are already at 5 reverts on the day your block for making 5 reverts about the same content ended, and now you are also sending out 3RR notices to other editors such as me (despite me only reverting twice, as there were 2 other editors who also reverted you today). The talk page discussion has been ongoing for over a month, and I think your contribution there so far speak for themselves. – notwally (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    You only seem to focus on my contributions to reverting the changes, not my contributions to the talk page discussion. If you want this edit war to end, best you stop by on the talk page to do some civil discussion. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Æ, you made your first contribution to the talk page discussion three minutes before writing this reply. You aren't really in a position to demands others "stop by on the talk page" when it took four reverts from three different editors before you did the same. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess my ADHD brain thinks reverting is better than discussion on the talk page. At this point I don't even know why I keep edit warring. Maybe I have inherited this "bludgeoning" from my father. Don't know anymore. I just don't.
    Help me. I don't think I can take it anymore. I have gone mentally insane. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's difficult to say why any of us edit war, but you're not alone in it. I think the best option is to just keep going. Consider doing a different task or finding another article to work on in the meantime; you've made plenty of good contributions here, so keep doing that. Find something that makes you happy. Just remember, it's not the end of the world. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Problem is, all of my edits get reverted. I can't figure out why. I am stuck in a permanent edit war on every article I touch, whether I like it or not. HELP! Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    All of them. On every article I edit. All of them get reverted. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's not entirely true; looking at your contributions, I see many edits that were not reverted. In any case, you should consider reversions an opportunity to build your knowledge; discuss on the talk page and explain your edits. You may learn something to keep in mind for the future, or you might teach something to someone else. It's always better to respond to reversion with discussion than with more reversion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Understood. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you even take my edits into consideration? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Since Æ's old account wasn't working cannot keep himself from reverting on this article even after having been previously blocked from edit warring at the same article, I've partially blocked him from the article for a month. If he gets talk page consensus for the disputed edits prior to the block expiring let me know and I'll lift the block.-- Ponyo 00:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:2600:1001:B129:3A84:31C2:67F3:252:DDAA reported by User:Unblock-un on hold (Result: /64 range blocked)

    Page: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2600:1001:B129:3A84:31C2:67F3:252:DDAA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269301049 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    2. 00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300990 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    3. 00:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300962 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    4. 00:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300833 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    5. 00:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300443 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    6. 00:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300383 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    7. 00:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300328 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    8. 00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300251 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    9. 00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300207 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    10. 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300147 by Cyrobyte (talk)"
    11. 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269300072 by Cyrobyte (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Baldoz reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Scuderia Ferrari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Fixed discrepancies made by user Lobo151"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
    2. 20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: )

    Page: Pudukkottai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269446497 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) to 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268811016 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
      2. 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pudukkottai."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    See also the history of Pudukkottai Municipal Corporation Dawnseeker2000 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    See link to my request to have the page protected Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/01#c-Dawnseeker2000-20250108183700-Pudukkottai and that request's denial Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/01#c-Daniel_Quinlan-20250108191600-Dawnseeker2000-20250108183700
    Categories: