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 11:55, 29 December 2019 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,806 edits →User:DBigXray reported by User:Ms Sarah Welch (Result: No violation): response← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:40, 7 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,971 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}} {{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 = 401 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f |key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid=" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|TERF}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Bengali–Assamese script}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Newimpartial}}


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

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1267607323|21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
#
# {{diff|oldid=1267598936|diff=1267605297|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
#
## {{diff2|1267604312|21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
(Article is under 1RR, see below. The two reverts were within 25.5 hours, which is obviously gaming the system.)
## {{diff2|1267605024|21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
## {{diff2|1267605297|21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "changed page number"
# {{diff2|1267593518|20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
# {{diff2|1267529376|14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' Not really applicable to 1RR. Just one revert isn't edit warring, so how would one know to give a warning? And by the time another happens, it's already a 1RR violation. If a warning from me is required for a block, that means that the edit warrior gets a 2nd revert for free and 1RR is toothless, since the warning only happens after the 2nd revert. Or, if I can still report after the 2nd revert, then the warning is totally superfluous to this report. Anyway, this editor does know better. See below. <small>(clarified)</small>
# {{diff2|1267605728|21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' (ongoing discussion) '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1267603474|21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2024 */ new section"
# {{diff2|1267607080|21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2024 */ Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
The article is under 1RR. This was clearly advertised on the talk page until a few hours ago when it was removed by another editor in good faith. The dispute involves an ] - a 2018 draft paper. The apparent consensus of a discussion about the SPS was against inclusion, so the draft paper and 3 other SPS were removed, and nobody restored them for 6 days. Ignoring ], not bothering to get a consensus first, and intent on getting their favored content into the article, Newimpartial's two reverts consist of restoring the removed draft paper, the first time with the three other SPS, and the second time by itself. Note that this editor has already been blocked once for 31 hours for edit warring in July, so any block this time should be longer. ] (]) 19:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC) (clarified) ] (]) 22:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
: Without expressing an opinion on the merits, just noting in passing the irrelevancy of a TP notice, and that the article page has had ] which includes <nowiki>{{Ds/editnotice|1RR|topic=gg}}</nowiki> since June. ] (]) 21:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Adding: In case anyone doubts that edit warring is an ongoing problem with this editor, note what they themselves said less than 2 weeks ago regarding their behavior on a different article that is under 3RR: {{tq|it is certainly within my rights to revert up to three times...}} They had in fact done that, which is why they're defending it, and they are wrong because ] says, {{tq|The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times}}. ] (]) 23:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


Makes changes to longstanding version to contentious topic, removes source, doesn't abide by ], keeps edit warring and even when discussion has started in the talk page. Note similar POV removal dated and also the use of minor ('''m''') in some of the edits which are not ]. ] (]) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Comment by Newimpartial -''' I would just point out that the second so-called "revert" was in fact a compromise, restoring one specific source for policy-compliant reasons rather than simply reverting the large-scale removal of sourced content by Crossroads. I don't think any such compromise can plausibly be considered "gaming the system", but I invite scrutiny and constructive suggestions for my editing, as always. ] (]) 01:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
:Also note this POV arrangement . - ] (]) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week block) ==
:'''Additional comment by Newimpartial''' This entire report actually strikes me as a kind of reprisal for the interaction between us recorded on Crossroads's talk page , when I opted to share a template rather than reporting Crossroads for an actual 1RR violation. Somehow he found this to be grounds for offense, though I cannot say how. But again, I am here fully receptive to enlightenment... ] (]) 01:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
::The "sourced content" that Newimpartial is referring to is sourced to a blog, a personal webpage, a YouTube video (seriously), and an unpublished draft paper. Their "compromise" is just them focusing on their favorite source, and no "policy-compliant" reason requires it to be there. Their gaming the system is evident by the fact they reverted just after 24 hours had passed. I have to thank them for reminding me that they did the same thing with the same exact content in September, two reverts to restore it in 26 hours: My supposed 1RR violation involved completely different content between the two edits, and was a mistake for which I offered to self-revert (but I had already been reverted and I still think Newimpartial was misinterpreting 1RR). I'm not even sure they were reverts rather than bold edits. Anyway, it is clear that this editor knows about 1RR and violates it to save this draft paper that they love. Just because a few hours have passed does not mean this should be marked as "stale", either. ] (]) 02:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
::: The "second revert" Crossroads is faulting me for is not sourced to a blog or a personal webpage, or a YouTube video, so none of these are relevant to the supposed 1RR violation. The "second revert" only adds back the draft paper bearing directly on the topic and written by published academic experts in the relevant field (linguistics of slurs) and is therefore definitely policy compliant to include, ahead of the op-ed commentary by non-experts which Crossroads is constantly at pains to introduce when it agrees with their POV. The discussion on the Talk page has not shown any objection to the inclusion of the paper in question by anyone who actually understands ] and ], the latter of which Crossroads . I could go on. :) ] (]) 02:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
::::Not relevant, this is a behavior forum, and your description is a gross distortion which I won't get into to save space. Let's focus on the issue: <u>Newimpartial is a habitual edit warrior whose behavior needs to be addressed.</u> ] (]) 03:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2010: The Year We Make Contact}}
{{an3|w}}. I consider this a violation, but it's not one I enforce on first offences (first time of a borderline duration between reverts, that is). But, certainly, please don't just wait an hour and a half to revert, Newimpartial. Yes, the brightline rule is there for a reason, but ] it in a procedural sense is going to be viewed harshly by many admins and is likely to result in sanctions next time (it certainly will if I see it). Anyway, try to give yourself a ''comfortable'' (I won't define it) few hours. But anything less than ''hours'' (plural) is simply not up to par. That said, if the edit wasn't really being objected to on substance but only in order to report the user so that they are sanctioned, that is a much greater gaming violation. But I can't tell whether this is so (arguably, that claim is an ]), despite Newimpartial argument that it may be the case. So the facts concerning the two edits being reverts is the only thing considered in the closing of this request. ] 04:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
:I do object to the edit itself. That is why I reported it. It is just this editor again out-reverting everyone else to keep their preferred content. ] (]) 04:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Æ's old account wasn't working}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|U.S. Route 2 in Washington}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA}}


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


;Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1267479624|08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
# {{diff2|932554030|19:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 932553505 by ] (]) This is clearly not disruptive editing. Rather it is edit-warring. Stop warring and stop ] and discuss instead"
# {{diff2|1267669527|03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
# {{diff2|932551785|19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 932471323 by ] (]) I'm being serious this time. Stop edit-warring now or an admin may intervene."
# {{diff|oldid=932382440|diff=932383906|label=Consecutive edits made from 13:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC) to 13:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|932383354|13:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 930245131 by ] (]) Remember I would like to remind you that from this revert you are not to revert from status quo ante bellum. No more warring. Okay."
## {{diff2|932383906|13:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Updated archive link for RDP to last snapshot before the link went dead"


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|932554573|19:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1267468706|06:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"


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


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


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


* Æ's old account wasn't working blocked for a week. ] (]) 04:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It appears that a content dispute between an IPv6 user and a registered user is occuring once again on ]. Page was protected in the past involving another dispute which stemmed from the same two users. ] ] 19:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Page semiprotected one month by ]. As to the matter in dispute, SounderBruce says "Arbitrarily updating the citation access-dates without having a corresponding change in the content cited or a significant change in the cited webpage is deceptive to readers and editors". The protecting admin, ], has commented in more detail at ]. The IP editor has filed this issue at ]. Maybe there is some current practice on whether these access dates should be updated when nothing is known to have changed since the last access? The IP's persistence on this issue is puzzling though I don't know if it's an explicit policy violation. ] (]) 05:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Karlie Kloss}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Abbymsmall }}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Chance997}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


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


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' This is a long-running dispute, and sockpuppetry is not out of the question: ], ], ] '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Abbymsmall's edits include multiple articles with long-running disputes over models' measurements. I've not kept track of any sockpuppets or attempts to address these problems on a multi-article scale. --] (]) 02:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{an3|b|24 hours}}. ] 04:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Alcor Life Extension Foundation}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|47.26.218.18}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
;Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ToadGuy101}}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1267771905|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|932668925|14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (])"
# {{diff2|932670454|14:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1267757010|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
# {{diff2|932670772|14:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Vandalism on ]. (])" # {{diff2|1267751151|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267747621|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1267751597|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{diff2|1267301347|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"


;<u>Comments:</u> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>


User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
IP has been reverted for removing cited information by several editors on a ] topic. ] (]) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
:Please stop edit warring and trying to state that I am, it's not funny. When someone removes non-credible sources from POV opinion columns, that does not constitute vandalism. Please review Misplaced Pages's policy on Edit War and please refrain from doing so in the future. ] (]) 14:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}}.--] (]) 15:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1000mods}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for BLP issues) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mindxeraser}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Babar Azam}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|94.173.120.38}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|932689874|17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "content being removed again even though it is true and relevant"
# {{diff2|932689626|16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Undid removal"
# {{diff2|932689476|16:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverting changes made by user ilnord"
# {{diff2|932689278|16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverting changes made"
# {{diff|oldid=932688569|diff=932689016|label=Consecutive edits made from 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC) to 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|932688988|16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted page back from removal of relevant information"
## {{diff2|932689016|16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|932687136|16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Added back relevant content after someone decided to remove It"


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|932688647|16:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (])"
# {{diff2|932689807|17:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring. (])"


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
{{AN3|b|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
;<u>Comments:</u>
*{{AN3|blocked|31 hours}} ] (]) 17:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|ab}} ''']''' <small> &#124; ]</small> 13:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fernanda Torres}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indef) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Second Battle of Panipat}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mi6pro}}


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


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' '''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1267807698|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
# {{diff2|1267808131|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' Mi6pro has chosen not to use the talk page. '''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Mi6pro is just another of a long list of editors/IPs that have been attacking India related battles. This nonsense has been going on since mid-November, involving multiple IPs, "new users", etc. --] (]) 04:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|indef}} ''']''' <small> &#124; ]</small> 13:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
{{AN3|b|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
;Page: {{pagelinks|Indian classical music}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|SwarSadhak}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
;Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Csknp}}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
*


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

;<u>Comments:</u>

User blocked on December 17 for edit warring on this page. ] <small>(])</small> 16:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User also edit warring on ]. ] <small>(])</small> 16:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}.--] (]) 16:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Onam}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|DBigXray}}

;Previous version reverted to: (first revert)

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
#Second revert {{diff2|932932062|01:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)"
#Third revert {{diff2|932930882|01:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)"
#Fourth revert {{diff2|932930145|01:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|932930419|01:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|932930260|01:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} "/* Onam festival */ r"

;<u>Comments:</u>

DBigXray has made four reverts within 24 hours. The later reverts were made while ignoring my explanation/comments on the article's talk page. ] (]) 01:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:{{u|Ms Sarah Welch}}, you are adding pov content that has serious issues instead of working for consensus of your addition you are more intent on edit warring and filing block requests to get others blocked, first at ANI and next day here at ANEW This is extremely disappointing, coming from an experienced editor.
:
:And where did I make 4 I see 3 diffs above.
:@closing admin, in spite of the IP raising questions on her addition of pov content trying to convert it into a Hindu festival, instead of answering she is evading discussion /consensus. On top of that she is using offensive edit summary where she states "'''consensus with vandalism/disruptive editors is unnecessary'''". The filer has made an equal number of reverts. I think some action is needed here. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 01:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

::1st: 08:49, 26 December 2019; DBigXray (talk | contribs) Your edit summary: (RV some major POV edits with cherry picked sources that shifted the WP:NPOV balance of the article, discuss this on the talk page.)
::2nd: 01:17, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk page. stop edit warring (TW)
::3rd: 01:22, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): No consensus for these changes on the talk (TW)
::4th: 01:30, 29 December 2019‎ DBigXray talk contribs‎ 34,707 bytes -1,055‎ Reverted 1 edit by Ms Sarah Welch (talk): These POV edits need consensus. stop edit warring. (TW)

::Not only that, your reverts deleted sources, sourced content and misrepresent the source in Cultural Festival section by inserting content that is not supported by the Ponnumuthan source. Your edits suggest you are ]. ] (]) 02:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:::: {{ec}} {{re|Ms Sarah Welch}} DBigXray's edits do ''not'' suggest they are NOTHERE. No more ]; they don't help you, and they may get you in trouble.--] (]) 02:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Ms Sarah Welch}}, you are falsely claiming that i made "four reverts within 24 hours.". The time stamps clearly show that this is a blatant lie. And FYI, trying to get others blocked with ] doesn't  really work with established editors. ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 02:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


{{an3|nv}}. I count only three reverts in 24 hours (you need ''four'' to violate ]). But beyond that, this acrimony between you two is starting to become a problem. Do we need to implement an ], or can you two learn to work together in a collegial way? Please let me know. ] 11:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:] Sufficient talk page warnings were given on User talk:Ms Sarah Welch and yet she continued with her disruptive reverts , , and after hitting 3 reverts she promptly filed this ANEW report with lies that 4 reverts were made. It is quite obvious that her intentions were to weaponize Admin Noticeboards to get the other editor sanctioned as a way to evade ].  ] she is continuously attacking me and then running to admin noticeboards for getting sanctions, this ridiculous and childish behavior has to stop. My only intention is to work towards a Consensus version and it is not me who is trying to get the other editor blocked, so this is false analogy about the two. It is obvious to see which one has malicious intentions. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 11:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
::You repeatedly use the word "lie," which further adds to the acrimony — I challenge that, rather, you should ] that mistakes were made rather than ''lying'' outright. ] 11:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Alright ], I agree that I must assume Good faith and I should rather consider that "mistakes were made" by her in counting the reverts. Now can you address this obvious one sided ] that she is carrying out against me. As you are aware this is the second time, she has done this. Shouldn't this type of offensive behavior that is against collaborative editing be addressed ? --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 11:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
::::I am aware. And I hold a dim view of it. ] 11:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ashina tribe}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hunan201p}}

'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1267452946|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
#
# {{diff2|1267525585|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
#
#

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

<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
First time it was changed to "unknown" was made by an ip user. (), since then Hunan201p is removing sourced content and saying "Leave it alone for now.", saying that I should leave an article alone like he is an admin. I added sources, however he is still not convinced. Also claiming ] is "is a syncretic religion that may have been *altered* by Ashina.". This is nothing more but ]. ] (]) 10:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::The final sentence in this paragraph is inaccurate. I did not claim that Tengrism is a syncretic religion altered by the Ashina tribe; I suggested Beshogur's own source said that. My position has been that this is a very sketchy, grey area subject matter and that the article needs to be left alone until there is a discussion involving multiple users at the talk page (including Beshogur) until we reach consensus on the ethnic language of Ashina. He has thus far refused my suggestions.
# {{diff2|1267644988|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
# {{diff2|1267646582|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::Most of his edits appear to be geared toward the Turkicization of this ancient ethnic group. He initially attempted to delete several references from the page (on 20:45, 10 December 2019) which supported an Iranian origin for these people, by erroneously claiming their authors did not advocate such a position. He also added a flurry of "citation needed" tags ahead of statements related to these authors, which had in fact already been cited. After I reverted this, he tried it again, and another user (Wario-Man) then reverted those edits on December 25 for a second time, and suggested that he knock it off, as the article itself is being re-written anyway.
# {{diff|oldid=1267699885|diff=1267736737|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
::More recently, on 11:01, 28 December 2019, he falsified a reference to support the claim that these people spoke Old Turkic; something he apparently acknowledges having done, as he didn't put it back after I reverted it. Very suspicious behavior indeed, and I don't believe I violated the 3 revert rule, which should not apply in such situations, if I remember correctly. I'm confident my revisions were reasonable. Beshogur seems to be in a rush to complete a project that is under construction, all by himself, using very questionable building materials.] (]) 11:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} (by {{u|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:40, 7 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)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

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

    Page: Bengali–Assamese script (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
      2. 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
      3. 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "changed page number"
    3. 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
    4. 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bengali–Assamese script."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ new section"
    2. 21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

    Comments:

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

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

    User:Æ's old account wasn't working reported by User:Notwally (Result: 1 week 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. 04:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    2. 04:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267669354 by Notwally (talk) Multiple editors also do not support your synthesised stance."
    3. 00:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Something bad is going to happen to all of us if we don't just shut up here. Something terrible."
    4. 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267479503 by Notwally (talk) Drop it."
    5. 07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Just drop it."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."
    2. 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 06:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"

    Comments:

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

    Listen.
    Notwally, you started this whole ordeal by reverting everyone's edits without taking any into consideration, and attempting to bludgeon the talk page with your comments. You have also broken 3RR rule multiple times. Now stop please. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    You can make up whatever narratives you want. I think your contributions to the talk page discussion speak for themselves. If you think I have violated a policy, then feel free to provide that evidence. You have also now made 5 reverts in 24 hours . – notwally (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Page: Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Chance997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Page: 2024 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267757647 by CipherRephic (talk)"
    2. 14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267751974 by John (talk)Stop whining about him"
    3. 14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267747738 by Czello (talk)"
    4. 13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2024 United Kingdom general election."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

    Comments:

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

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

    Page: 1000mods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mindxeraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

    Page: Fernanda Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
    2. 20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    3. 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    4. 20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    5. 20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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

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

    Page: Template:Twenty20 competitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    2. 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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