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 00:46, 2 March 2014 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive237) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:37, 14 January 2025 view source EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,575 edits →User:Baldoz reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: ): Blocked 48 hours (using responseHelper) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
{{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 = 237 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Olivia Rodrigo}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mount Damavand}} <br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Slomzy0932}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Farhoudk}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{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. -->
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 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: and several subsequent edits


<u>Comments:</u> <br />Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted ''after'' a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. ] (])


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)
==List of ''Wagon Train'' episodes (Result: Warned)==
*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 16:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Recently I created the ] page. Afterwards I placed a peer review request on the talk page. One editor, ] added a guest star column to season one only. I do not think the article should have this. I prefer to have the list similar to such Featured lists as '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. Eclecticology sent the following message too me:
*:Left CTOPS notice on talk as article has been semi-protected since last November. ] (]) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I disagree with your POV that key actors should not be included in episode lists. What has been done in the other articles that you cite is irrelevant to what happens on the Wagon Train. Adding this information is clearly useful since people watching these episodes will certainly be curious about where they have seen a particular actor before. Many of the TV productions from the time period of Wagon Train employed actors that were well known for other roles. Indeed, only one of those that I added had a red link. As for the role of IMDb, your opinion that it is unreliable does not translate broadly into making its information unusable in all circumstances. Some kinds of information on that site, particularly lists of credited cast taken from the presentations themselves, are generally reliable. I expect that you will stop making these "undue" changes to my edits. You do not own the article.


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
No, I do not own the article; neither does Eclecticology. ''Wagon Train'' did indeed have high-profile guest stars but we are talking about a series that ran for eight seasons and aired a total of 285 episodes. I feel that adding this extra column will add too much to an article that is already quite long. Also I feel that guest stars should be added to future articles that would be devoted to one season each (i.e. ], ], etc.). However, each time I undue Eclecticology's changes he (or she) changes it back and adamantly states that his (or her) changes are right and rather brusquely berates me for being rude.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Indonesian cuisine}}
I think a third party needs to step in at this point. Can anyone help? ] (]) 22:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Malayologist}}
One can always have someone point out just what is and just what is not WP policy but let us look at the fundamental issue.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::Let us look at the fundamental justification of the reason for exclusion statement about an already existing article being too long. There has been a practice with WP that some articles that are perceived as too long should be broken into sections that better convey information for a particular point or effect. This is most evident with entertainment industry articles. There have been works of literature, songs, etc. that have been adapted into theatricals, then subsequently adapted into plays or movies. Do they all stay within the same article in WP? Of course not. Is information in an article about a particular entertainment production relegated to inclusion in WP within that originating article? Of, course not. Articles grow, split and divide into additional articles that they themselves grow, split and divide. There is a book from which an adaptation is made of a play or movie. If there is so much information about those subjects then it most probably gets divvied into that article which most appropriately should concern that aspect. Some entertainment industry articles are series because that is for what the information of that subject calls. A background actor certainly would be expected to be the subject of an entire article if their work was not sufficient for that purpose. Leave what information you have to a sentence in an article of that production. A noted actor certainly should have their life and career the subject of another article rather than leaving it to the production article. But if you never include information in an article merely because it is perceived as too long, then just where is it that the information will be included so that others are aware that maybe additional work needs to be done with that information? Some subjects in the entertainment industry field have an article on a series, articles on actors and crew, articles on particular projects that emerge through the creative process of a series. Is it a good idea to be put forth that information should be excluded because there is just too much? You say that you are not the owner of the article but do you recognize that by advocating the exclusion of information from the article very well controls what makes it into the article and WP? I am not saying that you are doing this surreptitiously but that is what is happening. WP does not encourage primary research yet it seems that a significant amount of information that we know about the films of the silent era come from those sources compiled by the entertainment industry in order for information to be known about their productions. Where else would besides primary records would this information be known? Only a fraction of that films were produced during the silent era exists and what published information from those sources deemed credible by WP is significantly smaller than what is available for the sound era. '''Wagon Train''' is a much different animal than the series' cited as an example of article content/style. I would venture to say that 99.99% of those people involved in the production of the Wagon Train are dead. The likelihood of publications by and about these people are very fleeting if people are not made aware of just who they are and what they have done.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Well, I guess there is always the possibility of developing the article on the Wagon Train totally devoid of any mention of there being a totally different article about the guest actors on the Wagon Train if Eclecticology decides to do so if left out in the cold? But is that treatment beneficial to WP? No one is compelling you to start the compilation of the actors on the Wagon Train whether the actor had lines or not. In fact, the Wagon Train would not be the Wagon Train without it's actors. And for that particular time period in the television industry who was a lead actor or a guest actor, or who was not selected as a lead actor or despite being a popular actor never guest acted on the series very well may show a subtlety about just what behind-the-scenes or personal influences there may or may not have been in that production. Considering the role that the entertainment industry has had on society, many people do not recognize just how nuanced their lives have been shaped. How many people when five years old recognized that the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon was their level of participation in the Cold War? Personally, it was all lost on me every time we as kids were subjected to Borsch for dinner but at least it was countered by those many times when my friend Gary in elementary school would hand over his Baklava as if it were a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--Oh my mom makes it all the time.] (]) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (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:'''
If your concern is more over how the message was worded then give me a shout and I'll direct you to some of the edit summaries that I have seen that are absolutely horrendous and inappropriate in a community that is voluntary. A quick look at the tables, just for the first season, would certainly show that if any where it would be there that those guest actors should be included. Linda Darnell, McDonald Carey, Dan Blocker etc. these are people on their own are remarkable people within the entertainment industry. Ask any person over the age of 50 who watched soap operas just who is MacDonald Carey and I would drop dead if they did not say that he was the head of the Horton Clan and considered such an icon of that industry that they still use his voice to introduce the show. His character children, character grandchildren and his character great-grandchildren have come and gone and his voice still lives on! If you are upset that the guy added the column only to the first year episode table, what does it take but a few minutes of cut and paste to finish it off. If there is a wiki policy to discourage guest star columns then maybe that policy should be reconsidered so that for those older shows (i.e. pre-1965ish) might have a different significance warranting a policy other than that of other television episodic guest acting appearances and thus dictate a different approach be considered. Hey, buddy. Cut your losses.A1Houseboy 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
# {{diff2|1269031551|18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
*{{AN3|w}}. {{U|Jimknut}} and {{U|Eclecticology}}, you both reverted three times, although the war is somewhat stale now. You are both '''warned''' that further disruption of the article may result in a block. Jimknut, next time read and follow the instructions on this page on how to file a report here.--] (]) 02:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
# {{diff2|1269033781|18:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Malaysian "influences" */ new section"
# {{diff2|1269033887|18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Malaysian "influences" */"


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|FRG}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gandon64}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 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|Peace}}
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597112965


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|159.146.51.112}}
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597119997&oldid=597112965
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597141351&oldid=597124001
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597161856&oldid=597143181
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597268430


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gandon64&oldid=597304823 section "FRG again".
(The ] was since edited, replacing my addition with a warning about me removing others' changes.)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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|1269051964|20:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ] (the only section). Edit summaries have clearly explained reason and quoted detail from ].
# {{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:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
The substance of this issue is very simple: Gandon64 keeps adding the line below to the FRG article; the initialism "FRG" is not used in any article. This line has been inserted several times in the past, and others have deleted it, sometimes saying that they consider it spam.
* FRG™ - Free Radical Gasification, a multi-patented ] to ] conversion process developed by Responsible Energy Inc.
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}.--] (]) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


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


;Page: {{pagelinks|Samsung Galaxy S5}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|GadgetsGuy}} {{userlinks|GalaxyOptimus}}


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


Already given multiple warnings ( and ) on ], yet behavior ongoing. ] (]) 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}. ] (]) 21:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|597322071|03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|597321884|03:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "logo fix, image removal due to questionable license"


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|597322766|03:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Using multiple accounts on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|597322900|03:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Scott Ritter}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}
;<u>Comments:</u>


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Only two reverts are listed, as the third is done under the username {{user|GalaxyOptimus}} (which he had, according to his talk page, changed from for violating the username policy). He constantly removes the image from the article, arguing that we can't use it under fair use because the source listed allegedly did not have rights to the image.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
He is also randomly tagging and removing other images from a Samsung Belgium Flickr profile which he thinks is flickrwashing based off a undisclosed "review", and literally removed an obviously user-created image for another Samsung article (as in, I don't think Samsung tablets ship with ] by default) and requested OTRS. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 04:04, 27 February 2014 (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"
:Here are some of Samsung Belgium's deleted images , , and . So basically its Vipersnake that is causing an edit war. Plus removal of the cyanogen mod on the screen must be done as this should have a seperate license just as the touchwiz and stock ui does. Plus i am not using multiple accounts as I have renamed my account, there seems to be a problem though with integration into the new one. ] (]) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
# {{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 ]"
::CyanogenMod ''is'' stock Android, and its open source. But still, in the case of the S5 page, that's a ''fair use image'' either way. It does not matter whether the source listed had "authorization". <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 04:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1269040838|19:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) No ] please - take it to the talkpage to build consensus for your claim"
:::But according to OTRS rules, a user must prove that the image if licensed to himself must be proven by submitting the requirements. Plus what is your grudge against OTRS ticketing? If the image is his in the first place and the OTRS reviewer has proven it, then it would be restored. Like what I have said, i just nominated it and not deleted it as i am not an admin so the admin that deleted it may have deemed my observation right, Right? ] (]) 04:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
# {{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."
:::::But the problem is that clearly its not a legitimate free-use. Basically your are just arguing that it is of free use just because it was unnoticed for a long time. There have been uploads before that has been licensed the same way as these images originally from samsung are and they are alll deleted as they are not allowed under the fair use license. It is even stated that ''"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"'' but there could be one in which a user could capture for himself the device (screen-off) and license it for free use or grab an author captured image on a article regarding the wiki article as long as it is licensed for free use by the original uploader on the source page. So to solve such, an review could deem it proper or not. ] (]) 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
# {{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"
::::::This phone '''isn't even out yet''' and has only been presented at an event open to accredited press. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 05:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
*Speedy deletion is properly contested. Open a discussion at ] to properly vet the deletion question—and quit editing warring with the back and forth reverts.—] (]) 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:@John I am instead will be putting the s5 image on the <span class="plainlinks"></span>.] (])
{{diff2|1269047181|19:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on Scott Ritter."
::I understand. For what it is worth I do not believe the image qualifies under fair use because a free image can easily be obtained. Nevertheless, there is nothing here that so clearly resembles vandalism to allow for an exemption of 3RR. Therefor, it is incumbent on both editors to resolve this matter through alternative means of dispute resolution. The best recourse will prevail in the end.—] (]) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
*I've added a link to the discussion GadgetsGuy mentioned above. It shows that both users are proceeding in good faith to resolve this matter as colleagues; in the manner that best serves Misplaced Pages interests. The mini edit war was not a deliberate act of disruption by either user, the disruption was of no consequence and minimal in duration, and they were both amenable to wp:dr suggestions as soon as they were offered. In this light, I believe this thread can be closed without action. I hope a neutral administrator will demonstrate concurrence by closing this matter as resolved.—] (]) 16:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|s}} / considered warned. --]<small><sup>\&nbsp;]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 02:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
# {{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"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Page: {{pagelinks|Breadsall Priory}}
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ] (]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* User reported: {{userlinks|Rushton2010}}


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article) ==
I made some minor changes on the 15th October 2013‎ to the ] article, which were reverted by Rushton2010 on the 16th October 2013‎, on the grounds that my changes had "seriously distorted the information to the point of making it incorrect."


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Twelfth Night (holiday)}} <br />
He nowhere pointed out what information was seriously distorted, and has used the same excuse to revert each and every one of the changes I have made, no less that 10 times now. Indeed as day follows night you can be sure that if I make a change he will revert it.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|RobinCarmody}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
I told myself that if Rushton2010 reverted my changes more than 10 times I would (reluctantly) draw the attention of this noticeboard to his activities. My impression is that he has "ownership issues", and on those grounds reverts each and every change by me. At no point did he feel the need to correct any mistakes (if indeed there are any mistakes) he just reverts the whole text, each and every time I have made any changes, and this has gone on now for a period of several months.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;<u>Comments:</u>
#
#
#
#
# (added since this report was filed)


In summary Rushodon2010 reverted my changes on the 26th February 2014, the 24th February 2014‎, the 12th February 2014‎, the 8th February 2014, the 5th February 2014, the 4th February 2014, the 3rd February 2014, the 29th January 2014, the 5th January 2014, and the 16th October 2013.


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
This not only violates the three reverts rule, it seems contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
<br>I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here, but as the page is one of little interest probably only local interest given it averages only 10-20 hits a day; of which some/most will be us anyway and the user involved as shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism and they have shown no signs of wanting to discuss -having on 10 occasions now reverted- rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization.
<br>The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
<br>Some are more issues of wikipedia procedure - for example the removal of 8 categories:
*Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
*Monasteries in Derbyshire
*History of Derbyshire
*Marriott International
*Augustinian monasteries in England
*13th-century establishments in England
*Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
*1536 disestablishments in England
-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries. There is also the repeated removal of "Citation Needed" tags, and the "Ref Improve" Hatnote - all without the issues they highlighted having being rectified.
<br>Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice -ditto why I thought he was removing the tags before they were rectified)</small>. It's Breadsall Priory.... Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both.
<br>Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved.
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)
<br>--] (]) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (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.--] (]) 16:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Murder_of_Wong_Chik_Yeok}}
;<u>Response:</u>


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Janessian}}
"The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu."


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Give a single example in the current text where that is true. If you can find a single example change it. You know full well that you have simply engaged in wholesale reversion. You know that you are being disingenuous. I am happy to make the article as accurate as possible.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here"


Again you are being disingenuous. The reason why you did not come here is because you know that you have engaged in wholesale reversion, each and every time, for many months. Not something to be proud of, and not something to which you wanted to draw any attention.


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
"the user involved has shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism"
# {{diff2|1269257936|20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Again, you know that to be completely untrue, as anybody who looks at the article can see for themselves. If there was a specific issue you should have addressed it, but you didn't, you just engaged in wholesale reversion. Again you are being very disingenuous.


"rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization."


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Ah a little bit of truth mixed in with the lies about "vandalism".


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)
"for example the removal of 8 categories"


I had in fact already decided to block before this report was filed. ] (]) 20:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
*Monasteries in Derbyshire
*History of Derbyshire
*Marriott International
*Augustinian monasteries in England
*13th-century establishments in England
*Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
*1536 disestablishments in England
-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries."


== ] reported by ] (Result: p-block) ==
I did not remove those categories. Why would I remove those categories? It makes no sense. If they were removed it was obviously accidental, and easily remedied by the editor. He simply demonstrates my point for me.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2010: The Year We Make Contact}}
UPDATE I see that the last version did accidentally omit the last list, but that does not apply to any of the other versions which were changed back by Rushton 2010, which he knows full well, so (yet again) Rushton2010 is being "economical" with the truth.


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Æ's old account wasn't working}}
"Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead, something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice"


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Again more deceit. I changed it to miles because that is how it is understood locally. I added Long Eaton because that is a much better known local centre. Long Eaton is much larger than Breadsall. He must surely know that, and so he should be careful about throwing the word "bizarre" around.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
"Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both."
# {{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:'''
Again a little bit of truth, yes it is better with both, that is the point. No mention of the kilometers issue I see. I wonder why?
# {{diff2|1269289036|23:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
"Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more."
# {{diff2|1267674454|04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2010: The Year We Make Contact}} "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
At last the nub of the issue. All that other stuff (to be brutally frank) he is just making up. This is the only substantive point. He disliked that I changed this sentence. Let us examine the issue. He calls it a gross error. Let us put aside the hyperbole and look at the difference between the formulations. He wants to say that "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon" which is a clumsy sentence. I replaced it with a sentence which reads better. Why the protest? The complete reversions? The refusal to modify that sentence? Because he thought it was important that although Augustinian friars could not own land (which was why it was incorrect to identify them as such) he thought it was important to draw attention to the irrelevant fact that this did not apply to any land upon which the monastery was sited. Now anybody can see that this is irrelevant to the point being made (i.e. which sort of friars were they) but he was not going to discuss the issue, he was a going to revert every single change I ever made, no matter how minor, simply because I changed this sentence in a way that took out this irrelevant point, which he found so important.


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)
"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved."


:Yes, I will discuss the issue on the talk page. Getting a little impulsive with these reverts. ] (]) 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Your behaviour has been clear all along. It could not have been more clear. You took possession of the article and reverted each and every change (no matter how trivial!) over a period of many months. You have now compounded this behaviour by lying about your actions. Lying about my actions, and all over a single sentence which you could easily have changed back if it mattered to you so much. It is all there for people too see. That is the beauty of Misplaced Pages. If anybody reads the article as it is now in comparison with the original it is clear that the charges of "vandalism" are just lies. All it amounts to is a difference of opinion about whether or not it is important to mention that the monastery owned the land "it stood on". The rest is just Rushton2010 attempting to justify his malice and arrogance.
::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) ==
] (]) 08:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2025}}
P.S. I see that Rushton2010 has just reverted it once more, even while it is being discussed here! That makes a total of 11 reversions! ] (]) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2600:1001:B129:3A84:31C2:67F3:252:DDAA}}
: You are aware that if you make an ], right? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Thanks. ] (]) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' No action. This is a long-running dispute but nobody broke 3RR. Both parties are advised to use the talk page. Use ] if agreement can't be reached. ] (]) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
# {{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:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul T T Easter}} <br />
# {{diff2|1269300306|00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking."
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Housefullofcards}}


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


Previous version reverted to:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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. -->
*/64 range blocked by another admin.--] (]) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
<!-- 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:


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Baldoz}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
I think that this is likely the same IP editor (]) that had been trying to revert to an unsourced version of the article previously, as ] created an account and began making minor edits about the same time the article was given semi-protection. That IP user was given a warning as well and there is currently an ] underway to see if all of the accounts are related. Here are the IP's edits: , , and here's where I warned the user: . The user has been warned previous to my post on his talk page by ]. While the page reversions have differed slightly, it is still the same unsourced information that they are trying to add. There is an ] for the page where I've also asked that people stop reverting to re-add the information and given various reasons for that. ]] 07:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|b}} – Five days for edit warring. The user was previously blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing on 21 February. The ] article was on 24 February. ] (]) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 h) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Pratibha Patil}} <br />
# {{diff2|1269468204|21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kakadesi}}
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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|1269466345|20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers ]"
# {{diff2|1269467260|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording ]"


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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 -->
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] ] 21:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*Please note that this is a BLP of the recently-retired President of India. The issue of dedicated controversy sections and the nature of what constitutes a controversy etc has been discussed before, eg: ], ], ], ] and ]. There are numerous other examples in the archives and the article was semi'd for a while due to some of these BLP violations. The contributor has been doing similar stuff at ] and, to be honest, seems to be nothing but aggressive wherever they go.

:The article , so the issue is not one of censorship but, as the prior discussions indicate, one of weight, recentism, relevance etc. - ] (]) 10:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

::They've . - ] (]) 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|blocked| 48 hours}}. Really a pretty short block considering they're edit warring on both ] and ] to introduce non-] compliant material, and considering this frivolous revenge templating. ] &#124; ] 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72h) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Götaland}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|JesseRafe}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|597306620|01:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 595754072 by ] (]): . (])"
# {{diff2|597329987|05:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 597306620 by ] (]). (])"
# {{diff2|597551165|18:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 597329987 by JesseRafe: Look at this user's history, he is using CN tags maliciously to push an agenda, look at the Talk Pages, he isn't even consistent in what his claim his, he is harming the integrity of these articles with his..."
# {{diff2|597554520|18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by JesseRafe. (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|597554461|18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Discussion underway at ], but editor seems unwilling to discuss, and has indicated that he will continue to blindly revert. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
:Just to note, I already blocked the editor after he reverted yet again before seeing that he had been reported here. ''']]''' 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
::Great minds think alike, I suppose. I'd consider Spark's block dispositive of the 3RR report given it's based on the edit warring, myself. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
:::This user did not cross 3RR. But that is a meaningless line if it is a meaningless line. The other user, Serge is repeatedly adding tags in articles challenging that Geats is a valid English name, claiming it was coined in the 1980s. That is about as ] disruptive as claiming "French" is not a valid English term and was coined in the 1980s. Why should we be required to prove to people to in] to use google, that the term predates the 1980s, as if that would make it "invalid" even if it had? And how many times does the 1837 usage need to be pointed out before other editors will HEARTHAT? This block is a bit excessive for a common sense response to disruption.] /]/ 18:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::I must say that I'm not to happy about being misrepresetned re: 1980s after having taken very clear action on that subject. --] (]) 22:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
::::This is under discussion at the user's talk page. I admit in retrospect there was ''just'' over 24 hours between the first and fourth reverts, but that's besides the point as Spark issued a block for edit warring generally, and not a bright-line 3RR violation (though I have no doubt given JesseRafe's comments that he would have reverted a fifth time). —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} by Spinningspark. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kathleen Wynne}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Edit warring to add ] violating guilt by association to article. ] (]) 21:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} by Paul Erik. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Albania}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mingling2}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Malbin210 below ] (]) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
:I really don't have any religious motive. The section about religion is very overcrowded. I request user malbin210 to resolve the dispute on article's talk page but does not respond. What should I do?] (]) 13:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

'''This is a exactly copy pasted from Mingling2 user contributions history''' > https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Mingling2

#14:50, 22 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Albania ‎ (And the reason behind this is that Moslem women don't pray at mosques and evangelical churches which have a single church for every ten believers.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
#15:59, 21 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . Albania ‎ (Islam is largest religion in Albania so its image needs to be placed first.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
#15:50, 21 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+571)‎ . . Talk:Albania ‎ (Tag: Mobile edit)
#12:30, 2 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,001)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
#11:53, 2 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-2,438)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion: These estimates it cover just 79 out 83 fedral subjects. Not much informative.)
#16:18, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-437)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
#12:50, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+682)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
#12:43, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+849)‎ . . m Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)

Then he removes an image from the national hero of Albania ... because he faught the muslim Ottomans ! And then he gives an excuse , that only himself can understand !

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albania&diff=596778004&oldid=596761300

'''And then he removes half of the section of the religions in Albania !!!! Why ? Because those minorities are christian !''' ( Albania is a multireligious country )


Let me repeat that this user is lying . He is not an albanian . And he is a sock puppet account of multiple times banned religious fanatic from Pakistan , with no life , that has a certain fantasy with albania ! I am sorry but i have lost so many hours now trying to clean up his mess !!! Trying to restore content that he deletes !!! <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} by {{U|DangerousPanda}}.--] (]) 15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Albania}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Malbin210}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Mingling2 above] (]) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I did nothing more than reverting edits that user mingling2 was making for religious purposes . All his reverts as demonstrated by his contributs history is about religion , be that in Russia Albania Macedonia or wherever !!! All in all is not edit warring ! '''Why''' ? Because when you restore the original version of wikipedia , when that version is being vandalized by a person with a religious agenda claiming to be albanian as well ( which he is not , because i am from albania ) then is called protecting the article from vandalizers !!!

He removes established sourced VERY VALUABLE content ABOUT RELIGION and only , that has been there for months or years , meaning that there has been a general consensus , '''furthermore''' look the latest edit that he made ( you have presented it here already ) . In the section of religion he removed around 1 kb of content about religious minorities in Albania which are a very active part of Albania society such as per example the Protestant community . Guess what he removed all that sourced and accurate content !!! And let me stress out THAT I HAD NOT WRITTEN that content . '''Why does he do that''' ? Because i think is one of the multiple sock puppet accounts that this person operates for Religious muslim propaganda !!! Please do investigate if he is somehow connected with an already multiple times banned user from Pakistan that has a certain fantasy with Albania! <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{AN3|b|one week}} by {{U|DangerousPanda}}.--] (]) 15:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Spshu}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&action=history


<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States (warned on talk page that I was reporting, but no reply.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States>


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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Tried, but this guy is not interested and is a repeat edit warrior. ~~~~ -->
DiverScout add information with sources that don't contain anything (webpages nonexistant or now foreign language sites), so I reversed the addition for reason as unverifiable ( & ). After all when clicking the edit linked the notice "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." is at the top, which the source are not. I have only reverse him twice and he had add it twice too. So, if I am block, he should too. He gave me from his "warning" to posting here and another 2 minutes for an actually flagged message at my talk page that was to indicate that he was reporting me. In which time as was discussing his disregard for waiting for consensus in moving to rename the article. Also, note his attempt at improperly informing the responding administrator that he "Tried, but this guy is not interested and is a repeat edit warrior." When given the time frame given to respond was almost nil to respond, so no DiverScout did not try. Whether or not I am a "repeat edit warrior" is immaterial to the current issue. I have run into several contentious editors who would not show up to discuss the issue until reaching near the 3RR line. Any one can report me, just as frivolously as DiverScout has now. ] (]) 18:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:37, 14 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:

    Categories: