Revision as of 21:42, 6 July 2009 view sourceTheRealFennShysa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers16,441 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:41, 22 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,800 editsm Archiving 7 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491) (bot | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}} | |||
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}} | |||
{{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
] | |||
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ] | |||
{{pp-move|small=yes}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 491 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(2d) | ||
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f | |||
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81 | |||
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d | ||
}}</noinclude> | }}</noinclude> | ||
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. --> | |||
{{Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox}} | |||
__TOC__ | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected indef) == | |||
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>--> | |||
:Please place new reports {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can the ] for it. | |||
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. --> | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}} | |||
<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev xml:space="preserve">== Edit warring on ] article ==</rev></revisions></page></pages></query><query-continue><revisions rvstartid="299414584" /></query-continue></api> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}} | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Closed without blocks for 3RR) == | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
* Page: {{article|List of United States Presidents by date of birth}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Unitanode}} | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> | |||
# {{diff2|1270068423|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)" | |||
# {{diff2|1270041541|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)" | |||
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed" | |||
# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"." | |||
# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil" | |||
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]." | |||
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
# {{diff2|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt" | |||
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add" | |||
<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 --> | |||
All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me. | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules. | |||
:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: More reverts , can someone do something? - ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: {{AN3|p}} I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues. ] (]) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) == | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br /> | |||
<!-- You're 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 --> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}} | |||
* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox | |||
I have never reported an editor for 3RR before, so I apologize if I've made any mistakes in this report; I'm trying, in good faith, to do this correctly. User Unitanode has blatantly disregarded Misplaced Pages rules and made clearly innappropriate edits. I will focus here, though, just on his violation of 3RR in this case. When he made his fourth edit within 24 hours, I pointed out on his talk page that he had violated 3RR, and asked him to please self-revert this fourth edit. Not only did he not self-revert this edit, but he erased my 3RR warning from his talk page! I then pointed out on another page again that he was aware of 3RR because he had referenced his understanding of the 3RR rule yesterday, and I also then provided him with a new link describing the specifics of the 3RR rule to make absolutely sure he understood this rule, and again asked him to please self-revert. He has seen these warnings but refuses to self-revert. Because he has chosen to so blatantly disregard Misplaced Pages rules, I ask you to please give him a long enough block from editing so that he will be deterred in the future from disregarding Misplaced Pages rules. Thank you.] (]) 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
: Why is the first "revert" a revert? This is clearly an edit war, in which both sides should back off and use the talk page more ] (]) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight | |||
:: The first revert is a revert because Unitanode came along and changed it from Jones to Boomer, after it had been Jones for a long time. You're right, that this is an edit war, and a difficult one because Unitanode is so unwilling to discuss on the talk pages. I've repeatedly tried to get him to approach this in a collaborative way, rather than edit warring. | |||
# – same | |||
# – same | |||
# – same | |||
# – same, now with PA | |||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
::He keeps showing an utter disregard for the rules; shouldn't he be deterred from doing this? Today, his behavior is even worse. He initiated a nonesense investigation today for sockpuppetry against me (I believe as retaliation against me for making this 3RR report yesterday). And now he uses that as an excuse for further disregarding the rules. He reverted the Generation Y page 5 times in the last few hours, claiming he can do that because he suspects that the editors he is reverting are sockpuppets (they aren’t). Isn't that a decision that administrators make? I strongly want to revert to what I feel is accurate info in these articles, but I’m respecting the rules and not reverting more than 3 times within 24 hours. I feel like this is very unfair because I'm being punished for following Misplaced Pages rules and he is being rewarded for breaking the rules. Here are the 5 GenY reverts he made today: | |||
::Please block this editor in a way that will deter him form continuing this flaunting of Misplaced Pages rules.] (]) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::The sockpuppet investigation seems justified, although I'm not convinced that TreadingWater is really one of the socks, he may just be telling people off-Wiki what articles need to be watched. Unfortunately, although I agree with ] as to the proper content of most of the articles in question, he has probably violated 3RR on ], and TreadingWater has not ''recently'' violated 3RR unless he and one of the other SPAs are ''considered'' to be the same (which does not require they technically being sock puppets; could be meat puppets). I may not close the AN3 report, but the sock puppet question seems legitimate to me, and I would reluctantly block Unitanode for ], if he had been warned. — ] ] 02:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment'''. I believe I have been dealing with a large number of sock/meat puppets, as I reported on SPI, and have been addressing them as such, while waiting for the SPI to be addressed. But I'll stop until the question is settled, if it's a problem. ] 02:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
** Please don't edit war, even for a "good reason"... instead just let it slide till the report is processed. Which it now is, see ]. To all, in this case, I strongly recommend leniency for Unitanode.... just don't do it again. ++]: ]/] 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] | |||
*{{AN3|note|2=Checkuser indicates that ] is most likely a sockpuppeteer as per ]. -- ] (]) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' | |||
*'''Comment''': I will not make the final decision here; however, I will point out that the ] indicates that TreadingWater has been using multiple accounts on this and other articles to keep it in xir preferred version for some time. As important, Unitanode had agreed above to stop editing in this area until the SPI report was completed; thus any edit warring had already stopped. I note TreadingWater had also violated 3RR here. I would urge this to be closed without any blocks related to this. ] (]) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
**{{AN3|d}} Unitanode agrees to stop editing in the area for now; Treadinwater has other issues to deal with. -- ] (]) 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h all round) == | |||
User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the ] and ] divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, ], says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has ''notably'' competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was ] for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly. | |||
As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Page: {{article|Eurymedon vase}} | |||
:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Twospoonfuls}} | |||
::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Based on , it could be ] as well. ] (]) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --] (]) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. ] (]) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] 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|Tübingen School}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xpander1}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
(Just some examples) | |||
# {{diff2|1270585353|07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Self-reverting as per ]" | |||
# {{diff2|1270579742|06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270517034 by ] (]): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits" | |||
# {{diff2|1270517034|22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270516481 by ] (]): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely" | |||
# {{diff2|1270516481|22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])" | |||
# {{diff2|1270515748|22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270489731 by ] (]): Please add the new sources to ] Best." | |||
# {{diff|oldid=1270482917|diff=1270489731|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
## {{diff2|1270484281|19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect" | |||
## {{diff2|1270489731|19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Redirecting page the newly created page" | |||
# {{diff2|1270482597|19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution" | |||
# {{diff2|1270267829|19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])" | |||
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
# {{diff2|1270589185|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section" | |||
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
] | |||
# {{diff2|1270588908|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply" | |||
# {{diff2|1270341854|02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests}} "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from ] - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page" | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> | |||
User Twospoonfuls has been consistantly reverting the page ], these changes have been made by a number of editors, and on the talk page clear arguments for catagory headings were put forward and agreed upon by everyone except Twospoonfuls who explicitly admited that he feels ownership of the page and disregards anybody who disagrees with him, and also feels he doesn't have to put forward an argument to support his position. His reverts were originally characterized by such edit summeries as "no thanks" etc, but he has been reverting all the recent changes as vandalism, despite having it pointed out quite clearly that good faith edits should not be described as such and pointed in the direction of the relevent guidelines. As well as the three revert rule also being pointed out to him. The original discussion on the talk page ended with Twospoonfuls declaring that he would treat any edits he did not agree with as vandalism, him saying that changes to the page were his decision as the major contributor to the page and unilaterally stating that the discussion was closed. ] (]) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Extremely aggressive edit warring. Xpander1 had expanded a redirect to a page with no issue but decided it would be better to just create a page, hence a discussion at ]. Editor decided to "redact contribution in protest", initially blanking then resorting to redirecting. ] would assist in reverting these changes with Xpander1 reacting negatively, violating 3RR to get it erased. Editor had created redirects such as ] and ], with ] being where he did a cut-and-paste move from original article. Has no intention to resolve dispute any time soon. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Did you see the bit of the template that said "evidence of trying to solve the dispute on the talk page"? Weeeeelllll... its not there just for fun, you know. 24h both parties ] (]) 20:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in the ], and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Misplaced Pages must distinguish between '''valid-article-creators''' and '''redirect-page-creators'''. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair. ] (]) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) == | |||
::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Page: {{article|In a Perfect World...}} | |||
:{{AN3|b|72 hours}} , I am mystified—no, make it ''stunned''—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the ''page creation log'' isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the ''software'' does, that by design no one has control over. {{u|Wetman}} is going to get credit for creating the ''page'', yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the ''article'' by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.<p>Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of ]. I strongly remind them ].<p>I also reject their argument that ] shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is ''inarguable'' that, especially given their statement that ], they did so in a manner calculated to cause ] and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to ]. ] (]) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* User: {{userlinks|AndreaCarax}} | |||
::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) == | |||
This is not a 3RR report but a edit-warring report, thus no diffs. This user has been removing genres from ] despite being warned and blocked twice for violating 3RR. Since I blocked them the last two times, I'd appreciate if another admin here were to handle the continued edit-warring by this user from here (to provide a second set of eyes). Regards ''']]''' 12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Oriel High School}} | |||
:{{AN3|b|1 week}} — ]<span style="color: #999;"> // </span>] 13:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.238.20.255}} | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) == | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
* Page: {{article|<!-- Place name of article here -->Himarë}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|<!-- Place name of user you are reporting here -->I Pakapshem}} | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> | |||
# {{diff2|1270686162|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content" | |||
# {{diff2|1270685824|19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content" | |||
# {{diff2|1270685483|19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content" | |||
# {{diff2|1270684934|19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content" | |||
# {{diff2|1270683674|19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content" | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</u> | |||
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) == | |||
'''Page:''' ] <br /> | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->The user seems to be a newcomer (ca. 1 month) and part of a pro-Albanian team of the already 4 times blocked user ]. It seems quiet erroneous, but he insist on deleting the town's mayor (and main representative of the Greek minority in Albania) in the list of notable personalities. He also continues the same activity in the articles: ] (3rr), ] (3rr). Although I've tried to make an reasonable approach in his talk page ], he continues the same activity] (]) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelvintjy}} | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179 | |||
:I would add that at this point, some sort of ARBMAC sanction such as revert limits might be in order in addition to a block. --] (]) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
1 week ] (]) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793 | |||
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081 | |||
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964 | |||
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562 | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both warned) == | |||
Edit warring and violation of 3RR. He's an edit war vet' and he's deleting sourced material and edit warring on a number of pages. He's been blocked 8 or 9 times for it, bu he continues. | |||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy | |||
1 | |||
2 | |||
3 | |||
4 | |||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan | |||
] (]) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy | |||
: These are from two different articles and do not violate 3RR at all... take note that there is an ongoing consensus forming process on the subject, and the reporting editor simply ignores it and behaves as he owns the article and behaves confrontationally on the talk page, see: I have reverted to the version of Bzuk, who had suggested a discussion on the talk page. This editor ignores this complete, and continues to edit the disputed section to push through his POV. Take note of his edit comments. | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
: This editor has an ongoing feud against my person which is going on now for about a month. I am trying to put up with it and not respond, I can provide dozens of diffs for this, but for simplicity, it is also evidenced on the editors talk page, see . | |||
Hello | |||
: The editor has been warned dozens of times, by me, several administrators, and all his blocks have been received because of personal attacks and incivility against my person. I ask the admins to intervene and stop this behaviour pattern of his. ] (]) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the ] page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the ] page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
*{{AN3|s}} ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@] you blocked this user from the page ] in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. ] (]) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. ] (]) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I don't understand the user always keep targeting me. I am more of a silence contributor. I had seen how the complainant had argue with other contributor in other talk page and after a while the complainant stay silent and not touching certain topic and instead keep making edit on articles related to ] or ]. Now, he is making a lot of edit on ]. ] (]) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1RR imposed on article) == | |||
:::'''outside opinion from <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>''' First of all, this report is malformed and some admins would ignore it just for that; in the future, Dapi, if you ever need to report someone here, please do so using the '''''' and filling out the report properly. | |||
:::Now, as for the edit warring...as far as I can tell, both of you are edit warring. Dapi, you seem to have inserted the material before a clear consensus was reached at the talk page; more editors have weighed in since then, but your first edit may have been premature. Kurfürst, you have a history of blocks for edit warring and you really should be following the "]" to avoid further problems. | |||
:::I'd like to hear what another admin has to say here, but personally my course of action would be to warn both of you for edit warring (consider this message your warning) and ask that neither of you edit the article directly for at least 48 hours, but stick to the talk page instead. Right now the consensus seems to be leaning towards adding the material (Enigmaman's latest edit), but you should each stick to the talk page and let someone else determine consensus and do the actual editing for now. If either of you start revert warring again on this article during that time, I would consider blocking one or both of you (particularly you, Kurfürst, since now there are two editors who have reverted you). But again, I'll let another admin here make the final decision. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Elon Musk}} | |||
::The consensus always has been "Decisive British Victory". Kurfurst has tried before to have this overturned, but failed. I have presented the sources from people like ], ] and ] (who Kurfurst has accussed of lying on the talk page!) | |||
::I can't believe I can be considered for a block - I have made 2 reversions, both restoring masses of sourced material - while this guy has been ''removing'' material, all over the place. I'm just trying to do my best as an editor, while others are agenda driven. ] (]) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ergzay}} | |||
...I forgot: Rjanag, the stuff about the report is duly noted. ] (]) 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
''Right now the consensus seems to be leaning towards adding the material (Enigmaman's latest edit)'' - I disagree. Two editors in favour, at least two against (from those who are actively participating in the discussion), some made clear that the infobox is not a place for this. If you look at the , editor Bzuk suggested a discussion of the subject on the talk page. I have since respected that, and made no edits myself, while ] and ] ignored it, and both Bzuk and add their own versions again. I merely reverted their edit back to the established version (against my own suggested edit!) that was suggested by Bzuk (and which was there before the dispute over it started) until a consensus can be reached on the article in the talk page, which . The consensus is that this should be discussed first, which these two editors ignore and try to force through their own POV with reverts. | |||
# {{diff2|1270885082|18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Reverting for user specifying basically ] as their reasoning" | |||
Personally, I have no problem of refraining from editing the article for 48 hours, or longer, if the consensus finding takes a longer period, but I strongly desist the way behaves on wikipedia. This whole ruckuss is no more than another chapter in his personal feud against my person, and a misuse of the ANI. ] (]) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
# {{diff2|1270881666|18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list ]" | |||
# {{diff2|1270878417|17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Removing misinformation" | |||
# {{diff2|1270875037|17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" | |||
# {{diff2|1270724963|23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description" | |||
# {{diff2|1270718517|22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Elon is not a multinational" | |||
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
::Kurfurst, you have done multiple reverts on both the articles linked from here. Regardless of what is going on at the talk page, this sort of reverting is inappropriate. This page is not a place to argue over content issues; you can do that at the article talk page. In any case, please refrain from editing either of the articles directly, for ''at least'' 48 hours (but, better yet, until the issues are resolved on the talk page and an outside editor decides what to do). If you revert again during that time, it will probably lead to a block; the argument has reached a point now where you are no longer at a point where you can decide what the consensus is. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 22:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
# {{diff2|1270879182|17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]." {{small|(edit: corrected diff)}} | |||
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
::: I don't see my edits any more inappropriate than any other editor editing those articles, especially than those who ignored the consensus finding process and kept commenting their edits in a rather agitated manner. I suppose to rules apply to equally, and while its true and agreed that the argument has reached a point where a single editor can no longer decide what the consensus is, it applies to all editors involved equally. Otherwise, its just an encouragement for these editors to ignore the talk page and force their edits through reverts and false ANI reports. As noted, the editor making this report does not understand what the 3RR is and has a long history of edit warring, and personal grudge against me, for which he was blocked several times. But as noted, I have no problem with discussing the edits on the talk page first. ] (]) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
# {{diff2|1270885380|18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" {{small|(edit: added diff, fix date)}} | |||
:::Since i have been dragged into this i would like to have my say and not what people think my intentions may or may not have been; the article infobox had no inline citations a few days back. I added one from my own sources on this battle that defines the battles outcome in a single sentance and placed it in the article to enhance the article. Since then additional editors added in more sources further supporting this and then this little edit war broke out. Today, as can be seen on the talk page, i collated the stuff myself and others had added from both sides of the argument resulting in 1 source apparently supports a strategic stalemate, 5 sources supporting a decisive British victory, 1 source stating a plain British victory and 2 sources claiming it was not decisive. Since this was all the material that had been brought up it was pretty clear what the consensus was. Additional sources were then found by other users further enhancing the consensus then looking at the edit history this material was removed because "conclusion was not yet reached on talk page". I work in an office, i hate red tape and having to prolong things - i established consensus and edited the article accordlingly. I am not attempting to force my own POV on anyone - as can be seen with other articles such as ] that i heavily worked on the outcome states one thing that is consenus while a section is devoted to the multiple points of view that contridict it - something i suggested should be implimented in this article.--] (]) 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> | |||
Now, the irony of it all. '''Four reverts by the editor ] who filed this report in the last 24 hours in the same article...''' | |||
See: | |||
Breach of ] {{small|(added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below)}}. ] (]) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
, I see your point, but please take note that it may be a lenghtier process, and consensus is made by a discussion, not declared. Yes, I work in an office too, I know the feeling, but wiki ain't running anywhere. ;) So I suggest lets work out our sources on the talk page first before making any edits to the article. ] (]) 22:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, I know, that's why you both got warnings. | |||
:You have both agreed to stop editing these articles (and have not edited them since that) and both appear to understand that further edit warring will lead to blocks. I don't see a need for anything else to be discussed here. No need beating a dead horse, let's move on and get some work done. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
] seems to be making a mistake here as several of those edits were of different content. You can't just list every single revert and call it edit warring. And the brief edit warring that did happen stopped as I realized I was reverting the wrong thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270879523 ] (]) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Anonymous ] ] ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
:Read the bright read box at ] (. ] (]) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Page: {{article|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons)}} | |||
::@] So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Anonymous ] ] ]}} | |||
:::]: {{tq|An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.}} – ] (]) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. ] (]) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. ] (]) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::]: {{tq|There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons}}. – ] (]) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. ] (]) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it. | |||
:The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. ] (]) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. ] (]) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording followed by after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. ] (]) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. ] (]) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::What is a CTOP? ] (]) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::A CTOP is a ]. ] (]) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. ] (]) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::@] Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::{{tq|Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.}} If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. ] (]) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. ] (]) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion, {{tq|"I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it"}}, I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of ]. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general ] based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. ] (]) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that ''some'' of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers ''all'' edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the ''letter'', but not the ''spirit'', of 3RR (In other words, another case of ])) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. ] (]) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. ] (]) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. ] (]) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::@] My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. ] (]) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks) == | |||
<!-- 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|Paul Cézanne}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|203.115.14.139}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
'''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 --> | |||
# {{diff|oldid=1271008210|diff=1271008905|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
## {{diff2|1271008695|06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
## {{diff2|1271008905|06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
# {{diff2|1271007344|06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
# {{diff2|1271006989|06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
# | |||
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
# {{diff2|1271008376|06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert rule */ new section" | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
# {{diff2|1271010383|07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion." | |||
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
I'm reporting this <s>early</s> because the user is reverting talk page comments that are not vandalism. I believe the person is gaming the system with anonymous IPs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but talk page comments should only be removed if they are vandalism. The user should respond to the comments if they don't agree with them rather than just delete them. I believe the user is reverting any reference to previous sections to hide their own involvement in previous discussions and hide any link from the real user name to the bold edits and disruption under the now multiple anonymous IPs. They all seem to be from Dublin Ireland, which seems to coincide with the home of an angry user in previous discussion. | |||
:This is exactly why ] ]. This user thinks they can do what ever they want on a talk page but cries foul every time someone archives a page. The user is once again attempting to refactor a section of discussion page after the originator disagreed with them several times. And of course the user resorted to ] against the former me and has not ].] (]) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) == | |||
*This is straight-up vandalism. {{U|BusterD}} semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked ] for two weeks.--] (]) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Page: ] | |||
* User: ] | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
For more information - see | |||
--] (]) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|nb|48 hours}} Stale report: this page was protected yesterday because of the edit warring, and Farsight and the others involved have done no reverts since then. The IP filing this report has, however, reverted as soon as the block expired. Blocking the IP for 48 hours (if IP reverts again after block expires, it'll be extended to a week), and the page will be re-protected if other IP addresses start to revert. Deal with these issues on the talk page, guys, not the article. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Filipino people}}. | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Orsahnses}} | |||
* Revision reverted to: <span class="plainlinks"></span> | |||
* 1st revert: <span class="plainlinks"></span> | |||
* 2nd revert: <span class="plainlinks"></span> | |||
* 3rd revert: <span class="plainlinks"></span> | |||
* 4th revert: <span class="plainlinks"></span> | |||
* 5th revert: <span class="plainlinks"></span> | |||
* 6th revert: <span class="plainlinks"></span> | |||
* 7th revert: <span class="plainlinks"></span> | |||
<font color="blue" face="georgia">]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>(] · ])</sup></font> 02:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*I've just looked through this user's history, and it's troubling. ] (]) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
**{{AN3|b|24 hours}} Clearly edit warring— four or five different editors have reverted him, he's had a chance to go to the talk page and has not. Blocked 24h. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Just a note - it seems Huggle automatically adds reports here to the top. I'll note it over at ]. <font color="blue" face="georgia">]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>(] · ])</sup></font> 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Corona del Sol High School}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|70.190.101.200}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
* Reverts: , , , , , | |||
* Diff of 3RR warnings: , | |||
* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (not really- but ) | |||
After revert #6, the user ''did'' , but it certainly wasn't done in any better faith than the edit summaries above, which included some ]. As the IP continues to edit war rather than discuss, I'm requesting a block. ] (]) 06:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
: 1 week. 3RR + incivility ] (]) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Andrae Townsel}} | |||
* Page: {{article|Alan Turner (Canadian football)}} | |||
* Page: {{article|A. J. Raebel}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Giants27}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
In Giants27's edit summaries, he/she says they feel that the orphan tag is useless and keeps reverting tags placed there (the articles appear on http://toolserver.org/~jason/untagged_orphans.php as orphans needing tags). He/she refuses to accept this and removes the tags while they are still orphans or to create links to the articles in questions to avoid orphan status. I have asked him/her to talk to people more knowledgeable on the subject of orphans than myself but he/she has refused to do so and keeps removing the orphan tag. ] (]) 10:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The complaint does make sense, but based on I am not sure that this case should be treated differently to edit-warring against a bot. ] ] 10:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Postcard Cathy, please provide diffs and finish filling out the report. From what I can tell by looking at the article histories, Giants27 should not be removing the tags (and rather, if he believes orphan tags are useless, should start a discussion at ] or ]), but no one is going to do anything about this report if you don't fill it out properly. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I'll stop removing the tags, it's not really worth it to keep removing them.--] (<span>]|]) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:It may be a minor edit war but it's not ] as Giants27 ceased after the third revert in every incident listed. I also find Postcard Cathy's actions here troubling. The user added the orphan tag and Giants27 removed it with the edit summary that it was useless per ]. Postcard Cathy was unable to justify her actions in any way other than she acts like a bot tagging anything placed on a list and continued reverting instead of discussing. I find the whole orphans idea seriously over-played anyway. It is nice to have links to an article, of course, but it is not a critical issue making a broken article in need of repair. This is an out-of-date idea from the days when you reached most pages through links on portals. That just isn't the way the internet works anymore. ] <small>(])</small> 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Also, it appears as though after I warned (by her which is ] but whatever) I never reverted after that also I attempted to discuss the issue with her and she responded that "she didn't know".--] (<span>]|]) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::It looks to me like no action needs to be taken. The underlying issue here seems to be a disagreement over what constitutes "orphaned" and what articles should be tagged as such (I haven't read the whole conversation, but if I'm understanding you right it mainly has to do with articles that will never be linked from many other places no matter how hard we try?). If that is the case, it's better to discuss orphan-tagging guidelines at one of the links I gave above, rather than fighting over it on any articles; once a conclusion is reached at a centralized discussion, people can start implementing whatever is agreed on. In any case, Giants27 has said he won't remove the tags again, so I see no need for any admin action. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I told him to discuss it with people at the orphan group since they could explain it better than I could. Yet he continued to remove the orphan tags despite being told they meet the criteria for orphan status. I am part of the deorphaning project. I don't make the rules, I am just following them. If someone doesn't like them, I am not the person in a position to change them and Giants didn't seem to understand that. He APPEARED to feel his articles were not subject to orphan tags and rather than make links to them to avoid the tag, he just kept reverting my tags. ] (]) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::First part, I know that you've said that you don't know how to discuss it with me, so I have to ask, in a completely non-dickish way, why do you keep adding it to articles if you can't discuss the action of the edit? Also, I know I don't ] the articles in question but I do know they had 50+ links coming into them before they were released by their respective teams, so I don't think its necessary to waste time adding the tag only to have them removed when the said players are signed by a team.--] (<span>]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Imho, if you place those tags, you should know the policies, too. By applying them everywhere, without checking if this is correct, you're even worse than a bot, because the bot programmer certainly knows most of the exceptions. Remember, the devil is in the details (that you disregard)! Your actions, on the other hand, result in a lot of frustration for the users, totally unnecessary discussion for the folks in the orphan group, and even additional work for the admins, as we see here. This is not really helpful, quite to the contrary! And imho many normal (=occasional) users, like me, feel like you're bullying them. Do you really want that? Pls leave the tagging to the bots, and think of your own advice: "Save your efforts for things that are more important"! ] (]) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:It's only a recommendation to link articles within Misplaced Pages, it's not an enforceable rule! So, this is not like tagging an article for missing sources, which points at a mandatory Wiki policy. In this case, the user is allowed to let the article be an orphan, if he has arguments for this (). And since its only a recomendation, imho Cathy has no right to start an edit war when an editor remoices such a tag! And to plaster tens of thousands page with those tags, even though not having a clue about the policy and hoe to help people is really rich: "How to NOT get them listed as needing a tag is something I know nothing about." Well, obviously bots know a bit more than Cathy, because they don't put tags on surname pages. And on other articles, they even leave an edit summary! Even more reason to call for Cathy abandoning this line of work, and better concentrating on stuff that is more helpful for the community and for Misplaced Pages, like correcting capitalisation errors in titles, or moving articles! Pretty pls. ] (]) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Cheyenne Jackson}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Benjiboi}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
<!-- 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
Benjiboi is making multiple Edits sometimes 9 per day, changing or reverting any single person's comments on Cheyenne Jackson wiki page. The user will not allow any changes to the article that he does not approve of.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:42, 30 June 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
*You have not provided proper ]s of Benjiboi's reverts, and I see no 3rr warning on his talk page. No action will be taken here if you do not fill out the report properly. | |||
*Anyway, at this point no one should be editing the article, you should both be discussing the content issues at the article's talk page. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Filipino people}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|122.104.191.25}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
I discussed issue on the talk page. User is unwilling to discuss in talk page | |||
Note: I suspect the anon user to be a sockpuppet of ] who is currently banned for continuous reversions without discussing in the talk page. This is evident by the unwillingness of the user to discuss the issue on the talk page and that the constant reversions are on the same article. ] (]) 14:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|a}} for personal attacks, and I have semi-protected the article. The ] suggests that this is Orsahnses, and if the sockpuppet investigation there shows them to be linked then Orsahnses' block will be lengthened. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: self-rv) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Characters in Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles}} | |||
* Page: {{article|Resident Evil 2}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|97.106.50.228}}/{{userlinks|97.106.45.198}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
97.xx removed a reliable source from two articles. ] (]) 15:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
: Self-reverted ] (]) 18:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ''']]''' (Result: Warned) == | |||
*] violation on | |||
{{Article|Citizendium}}. {{3RRV|TakuyaMurata}}: Time reported: 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Larry Sanger stopped contributing")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 299416350 by ] (]) Well, we don't need a reliable source here. Besides, this is the official forum")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 299495464 by ] (]) it's not used as a source")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 299593329 by ] (]) don't understand what's wrong. This is from the "official" forum")</small> | |||
* Diff of warning: | |||
—''']]''' 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|w}} TakuyaMurata warned and asked to start a discussion on the talk page. Will keep an eye on the article; if there are further reverts without discussion, it will lead to a block. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and men, up to about 7RR now so it's looking like warning wasn't heeded. Though the article's talk page inherited the warning from his/her talk page. :( --''']]''' 03:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::No, the user has not reverted since he was warned. Check contribs: I warned at 00:58, he started a section on the talk page around 01:08 or so, and has not edited the article since. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 03:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::I realise that blocks aren't punitive, but sheesh, 7RR against 3 editors? Sounds like a dangerous precedent to me. --''']]''' 06:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::I don't see where you're getting 7, I count 4, and I don't see reverts on other articles either. (And, for the record, the first diff you listed isn't a revert, it's the first time he added the content). There's no reason to block him if he's not doing damage, and therefore no reason to block unless he starts warring again. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::Yes I had miscounted, it should have been 6 including the first one and an intermediate edit after reverting. But even so 4 is still more than 3, at least round here it is anyway. But as I said yes I do realise that blocks aren't punitive, but his behaviour was taking the piss whichever way you look at it. --''']]''' 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: semi) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Marc H. Rudov}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|67.169.148.163}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
* 6th revert: | |||
* 7th revert: | |||
* 8th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
Please block this user. He has reverted my edits several times without any discussion on the article's talk page. I warned him three times about the WP three-revert rule but he continued reverting. I also offered to compromise with him on the article's talk page but he ignored me. | |||
Since this is an anonymous user, I think it would be wise to block the above IP address along with similar ones that show the same pattern of editing. This would prevent the same person from using multiple IP addresses to edit the same article. ] (]) 16:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: Thank you for your kind advice. I decided to semi the page instead ] (]) 22:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for your attention in this matter, William. ] (]) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined, no violation) == | |||
* Page: {{article|SOCKS}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Thumperward}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SOCKS&diff=297388343&oldid=296896569 | |||
Actually he is not reverting all the content, but just reverting the part which is listing all SOCKS server software and only shows the link of the info of Sun Java System Web Proxy Server. Please note that he has stated out he is an employee of Sun Microsystem on his userpage, he also just calls that is "de-spam" stated which I think its totally nonsense as the useful links are removed too. | |||
By the way I don't think he will look on the discussion page at all coz he has deleted all the links without any dicussion. So thats why I haven't tried to contact him. By the way he has reverted / edited the articles four times in 4 hours just for the fancy looking without any functional changes, and removed all the links that he doesn't want (i.e. all the SOCKS server software links that are not related to Sun Microsystem). I haven't tried to revert what he has done coz I don't want to start another war while I don't have any power to do so, coz he has reverted / deleted all the links which were at least on the page for 4 to 5 months already without any reasonable reason.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
*{{AN3|d}} No edit warring here. I only see set of edits from Thumperward (and it doesn't look like a revert to me), ''and'' there is no reverting in between them, so there's no edit war. Try discussing these issues with him or at the talk page rather than just coming here right away (there is no discussion at the talk page or at his talk page). | |||
*For general clarification... first of all, read ], or just the top of this page, to understand what edit warring is. Read ] to understand why his edits were not four reverts (four edits in a row with nothing in between is considered one revert, not four, even if it is a revert). Finally, if you ever report someone here again, please fill out the report properly (provide ]s, etc.), as explained in the instructions. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Please Ban me (Result: OK) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Christian debate on persecution and toleration}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Zara1709}} | |||
Already quite some time ago I came along the article formerly know as Persecution by Christians. I've partly cleaned it up, but be now the hassle has become to much for me. Recently, I got picked at by some Christian editors for the work I've done in relation to this topic and now I'm getting picked at by apparently atheist editors. My work for Misplaced Pages must have some value, one editor commented that he views me as "one of WP's finest editors in the areas of religion and recent history", but I am always caught in the line of fire and it hurts. I think I've broken 3rr this time, so you would have a reason to ban me for some time. | |||
I've come here to write encyclopaedic articles, not to play some stupid games. I don't care who DreamGuy is or what standing he has at Misplaced Pages, but if he can take a verbatim quote from an academic textbook to be "blatant POV violation" , then obviously I can't discuss the topic with him. Hey, I am getting the message. I would like to quit Misplaced Pages so that you can continue your stupid POV-battles and produce encyclopaedic junk like most articles from ], but I care too much about what I understand to be the truth, academically speaking. If you want to have articles on religious persecution and related issues, these should be on the level of the academic debate. By our standard of ] you can't object to the sentences: "Nowadays, 'persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith' and ]s embrace ] and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension.(ref: Coffey 2000: 206.) until you bring forward another reliable source that disagrees.] (]) 12:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: Not entirely sure what the game is here, but you have 4R so I've blocked you for 24h. If you want to be banned rather than blocked you'll have to work a bit harder ] (]) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] (Result: blocked 1 week) == | |||
On ]: | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
(Behavior continues, with multiple reverts already today.) | |||
This is the user's 4th offense, at least, judging by multiple warnings on ], over the course of multiple years, always on the same pages. The repeated offenses seem to have gone unnoticed by admins because the user has . | |||
Due to the repeated, ongoing, and long-term nature of the offense, I am blocking for 1 week. | |||
] (]) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== producer (result: 48h) == | |||
* {{user|PRODUCER}}--] (]) 15:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Cr*p report, the worse I've seen this week, well done. But 48h all round anyway, the Balkans need a rest ] (]) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Dingo}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Mariomassone}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
I have listed numerous sources that show the Decker Dog as a nickname for Dingo. Mariomassone continues to just delete my edits even when I properly source them. This is not his first offense of edit warring, as evidenced by his personal talk page. He also finds it necessary to throw out personal insults on occasion. ] (]) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: 24h. Detailed rationale on your talk page ] (]) 22:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
* Page: {{article|List of Monk episodes}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Kevinbrogers}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
] has continued to insert speculation on future episodes based on sources that fail ]. Reverted by myself and ]. ] (]) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I note that his last revert was at 18:34, that he was warned about 3RR at 18:40, and that he hasn't reverted since then- is it possible he didn't know about the rule? I see that several people are now discussing the sourcing problem on his talk page; I'd hate to block him if he's already stopped on his own. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 19:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Well now we have an IP making that edit: . -]] 00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: stale?) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Racism in Argentina}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|68.173.95.177}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
Tendentious and disruptive editor ] possible sockpuppet for accounts including ], ], ] | |||
: I could block you both, since you've both broken 3RR. But you seem to have got bored, so I won't. Note that this is a content dispute (which is why you brought it here, not ]) so "rvv" is an inappropriate and indeed incivil edit summary ] (]) 17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|IB_Diploma_Programme}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|ObserverNY}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=prev&oldid=299693468\ | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
ObserverNY has been asked several times to stop moving a part of the article to the beginning, where all others agreed it should be at the end. -- ] (]) 00:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: {{AN3|b|24 hours}} as ]'s edits have shown to be against consensus. ]] 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Frank Guinta}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|LivefreeordieNH}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
This user has demonstrated a clear right-wing bias, and has objected to the addition of properly sourced material that puts a Republican in a bad light. He has repeatedly reverted the addition of an incident which is ongoing, involving police investigation, which I properly sourced, by claiming "it is slander by the Democrat Party". | |||
Additionally, I suspect and , which came after I warned of a possible edit warring notice, could be sockpuppetry. | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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 in the edit summary of . Obviously the next revert was not done with this user name, but there are a couple accounts, identified only by IP addresses, which suspiciously have only been editing this particular page. As I suspect that this user may be trying to remove this information while avoiding WP:3RR by doing it while not logged in, I decided to report it. If I am wrong, and it was somebody else, I am prepared to accept my mistake. | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
] (]) 01:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:'''Result''' - 48 hours for ]. This is their second block for edit-warring. Article has been semiprotected since IPs have joined in the revert war. This is not a comment on whether the 'Controversy' section should remain in the article. Please discuss that question sensibly on the talk page, and abide by whatever consensus is reached there. Editors who continue to add or remove the Controversy section without getting consensus first may be speedily blocked. ] (]) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Code Lyoko}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|MataNui44}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
*'''Comment''': User reverted to his preferred version after a for ]. No edits were made between block period and most recent revert, though he did wait several days before starting back up. — ] (] | ]) 02:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
** 1st revert: | |||
** 2nd revert: | |||
** 3rd revert: | |||
** 4th revert: | |||
I would like to add that The Rouge Penguin is being very stubborn and childish in not getting his way, and is also harassing me and he himself has violated this 3RR rule. ] (]) 05:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Which is why I self-reverted on the fourth. As for childish, ]. You refuse to participate, and have been opposed by more than just me. — ] (] | ]) 05:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Additional 3RR on {{article|Disney XD}} | |||
** Previous version reverted to: | |||
** 1st revert: | |||
** 2nd revert: | |||
** 3rd revert: | |||
** 4th revert: | |||
And I told you that you were the one who needed to take it to the talk page. ] (]) 05:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: 1 week ] (]) 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive547}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Fhue}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
* 6th revert: | |||
* 7th revert: | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (page in question is an ANI archive, so attempted to resolve matter on user’s talkpage.) | |||
Any attempt at communication with this editor quickly degrades into personal attacks, comment refactoring and deletion. — <em>]</em><sup>(])</sup>, 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} and told not to edit archived pages. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Frank Guinta}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|76.118.223.230}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
* 6th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
See the above edit war on the same page. I suspect this IP address could be a sockpuppet. --] (]) 03:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: ''2009-07-02T04:42:54 TeaDrinker (talk | contribs | block) blocked 76.118.223.230 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Persistent section blanking, disruptive editing) (unblock | change block)'' ] (]) 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result:Query) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Asmahan}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Arab Cowboy}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=299776227&oldid=299775170 | |||
* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=299853680&oldid=299845254 | |||
* 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=299900516&oldid=299898043 | |||
* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=299903988&oldid=299903052 | |||
The guy is most likely soc puppeting right now on the talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Asmahan | |||
''"This is my first contribution to Misplaced Pages, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009. And I believe her Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead.'' Nefer Tweety (talk)" | |||
He uses the exactly same language as Arab Cowboy bringing up the "15:48, 2 July 2009" that no one supports or have ever cared about except Arab Cowboy and talking about "Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead" - this is the exactly same talk as from Arab Cowboy. | |||
--] (]) 15:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Unfortunately, we've had a 3O mediator, HelloAnnyong, who has been either collaborating with accuser above, Supreme Deliciousness, or has really been unable to understand the evidence submitted on the . Annyong jumps to conclusions all the time in support of SD and then flip-flops when he "later finds out" that SD had been misquoting, to put it politely, the sources and on the Talk page. Annyong's collaboration with SD and/or negligence in examining the evidence and edits, as well as flip-flopping, has only exacerbated the situation and increased the edit warring on this article. I now have to contain the messy situation created by both SD and Annyong. --] (]) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Misquoting the sources? It happened '''one time''', and I removed it and never talked about that source again. This is coming from a man who he himself changed the whole article without any source or without any kind of agreement at all at the talk page, while I re-established the original article, brought in new info everything sourced. Enough, this is about 3rr not about the article.--] (]) 22:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::The evidence will show that all SD says above is untrue. I have provided reliable sources to support ALL my arguments. Annyong stated that he made a concession and agreed to placing nationality in the lead, then he flip-flopped. Annyong acknowledged that SD's quotation of the source, which he had endorsed, was in error. Annyong also acknowledged that SD's edit that he had also initially endorsed was not in agreement with the Discussion on the Talk page and he reverted it again to one of his earlier edits. This last edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009, created by Annyong, is the version that I endorsed, '''not my own'''. So agreement had been established. Further reverts by SD will invite more eidt warring; he's engaged in these kinds of wars with numerous other users on other articles. --] (]) 23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|n}} Arab Cowboy is edit-warring and has exceeded 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. However, since no link to a warning has been provided, I am inclined to warn rather than block unless there is evidence to show Arab Cowboy was aware of the 3-revert-rule prior to his 4th revert. ] (]) 01:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:CIreland, It's a shame that you side with the aggressors on a technicality. Please review the Talk page of the refrenced article and '''click the links that I provided in my response above''' before you issue a warnings without understanding the background. Also, '''please see counter complaint in New Section below.''' There were 6 edits in total done by User SD, 4 of which are non-contiguous, all in a 24-hour period. Please see . --] (]) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
CIreland, Arab Cowboy was fully aware of the 3rr, he is the same person as http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/98.194.124.102 and http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/98.195.180.144 | |||
Its the same person only he has registered Arab Cowboy now, If yo go to the Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles and talkpages you will see that Arab Cownoy is continuing edit warring and the same posts at the talkpages, notice that at the Asmahan talkpage I call him Arab Cowboy/98, and he is not denying it. Here is he editing his own IP adress: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=298840535&oldid=298219813 | |||
Arab Cowboy/98 was fully aware and has been warned in the past: | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=293640909&oldid=292849281 | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=296730824&oldid=296721926 | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=296733174&oldid=296731143 | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A98.194.124.102&diff=296733502&oldid=296733323 | |||
Notice also that in his post above he doesnt deny being 98 , '''if you still do not believe that 98 and Arab Cowboy is the same person you can ask administrator: Graeme Bartlett, he will confirm it for you. --] (]) 06:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
''' | |||
====Result==== | |||
I am satisified that Arab Cowboy is the IP in question. | |||
Summary of full and partial reverts since full protection expired: | |||
*By Supreme Deliciousness: , , | |||
*By HelloAnnyong: , | |||
*By Arab Cowboy: , , , | |||
Since Supreme Deliciousness and Arab Cowboy are simply continuing the edit war that was occurring before full protection, I am blocking both, even though the former has not broken the three-revert-rule. | |||
*{{AN3|bb}} {{userlinks|Supreme Deliciousness}} blocked 24 hours. {{userlinks|Arab Cowboy}} blocked 24 hours. ] (]) 14:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hour block) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Cleon Skousen}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Hardindr}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
Although no formal warning was given on his home page, several were given in comments including the link above, and acknowledged in response comments as well as . | |||
<!-- You're 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 on a related article also under attack ] | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
This editor is trying to emphasize ]'s association with ] and push the idea that Skousen is a conspiracy theorist, despite several editors disagreeing with his assessment. But he continues to try to put the material in the lead of the Skousen article (when all other editors agree it should not be in the article at all, let alone the lead) in order to then describe Skousen as such in the Beck article. ] (]) 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:{{AN3|b}} for 24 hours for edit-warring at ] and ]. ] (]) 02:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) == | |||
* Page: {{article|List_of_contributors_to_Marxist_theory}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Ibarrutidarruti}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: and 28 May and 4 May | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
This has been going on for quite a period of time, additionally on other Lists of Marxists. The editor has been line driving, mis-quoting policy, and acting in bad faith, using persistence and slow reverting to nominally conceal their editing from 3RR. In addition to the diffs above, please not the article history and the repeated insertion of content by the editor identical with the 3rr diffs. This is not simply a 3rr claim, but a general edit warring claim. | |||
When challenged extensively on the talk page the editor weaseled (fair enough), and then used rejected citations which disprove their edit, to demonstrate their edit, leading to the current 3rr element of this edit war.] (]) 03:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:'''<s>Interim</s> Result''' - ] has been edit-warring to insist that ] was a Marxist theorist, across a variety of articles, and has reinserted Kim's name several times after it was removed by others. I left a giving him a chance to follow ] in lieu of a block. <s>I suggest this report be kept open until Ibarrutidarruti has a chance to respond. If he agrees to dispute resolution, other participants will be expected to follow whatever verdict is reached as to the inclusion of Kim's name. ] (]) 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)</s> | |||
::Ibarrutidarruti has not edited since my last comment. He is on notice that he may be blocked if he continues to add Kim Il-Sung's name to articles without following dispute resolution. ] (]) 02:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
==] reported by ] (result: 1 week)== | |||
*Page {{article|1948 Palestinian exodus}} | |||
*User {{userlinks|Wikifan12345}} | |||
] is reverting the lead against two editors at ], and against talk-page consensus. There is a lot of material being reverted, but if you focus on the phrase "']' 100,000 of the refugees" in the third paragraph of the lead, you'll see the 3RR violation clearly. | |||
*Previous version reverted to : "'repatriate' 100,000 refugees" | |||
*1st revert : agreed to ']' 100,000 of the refugees" | |||
*2nd revert : "agreed to ']' 100,000 of the refugees" | |||
*3rd revert : "and ']' 100,000 refugees" | |||
*4th revert : "agreed to ']' 100,000 of the refugees" | |||
*He then reverted himself at , but with the next edit reverted back to his 4th revert | |||
*4th revert repeated : "agreed to ']' 100,000 of the refugees" | |||
===Comments=== | |||
Wikifan12345 is aware of the 3RR rule, and has been blocked three times for it since March. 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: 1 week. I'm getting the impression that some editors just regard a 3RR block and edit warring as part of the normal operation of wiki, like ] and prison. It should not be ] (]) 07:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: stale / warned) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Asmahan}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Supreme Deliciousness}} | |||
How about the accuser above, Supreme Deliciousness, himself making '''4 reverts''', 6 edits in total of the same article in less than 24 hours? | |||
1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=299775170&oldid=298441928 | |||
2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=299839985&oldid=299776227 | |||
3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=299839985&oldid=299776227 | |||
4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asmahan&diff=299901250&oldid=299900516 | |||
This is a formal complaint. --] (]) 06:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: <s>Contiguous reverts cound as one; no vio. This reads like a revenge report and does you no credit. If you don't understand the rules, slow down and read ] ] (]) 07:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)</s> | |||
::William M. Connolley, Only 2 of the above edits are contiguous and I labelled them as edits as opposed to reverts. There were 6 edits in total done by User SD, 4 of which are non-contiguous, all in a 24-hour period. Please see the history page of the article. --] (]) 07:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::@ WMC: I think it might be time for the article to be protected. I haven't read the entire talkpage discussion over this dispute, but it doesn't really matter who's "right" here.... when this much reverting goes on, everybody is wrong as far as AN3 is concerned. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 07:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::: Mea culpa. I missed your labelling of 5 and 6 as "edits". I've removed those from the list, as they are pointlessly confusing. Looks like 4R to me. But (hopefully) a stale one. The page is fairly recently off prot and being mediated by AY so I'd be inclined to give that a chance. If all sides could hold back from revefrting for a bit that would be nice ] (]) 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::WMC, Thanks for the correction. Although, this is not a stale issue. SD is still pursuing it, and edit warring on this article and many others. --] (]) 07:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: stale) == | |||
* Page: {{article|2009 Honduran coup d'état}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Redthoreau}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: (In this case a third editor had deleted the whole section I'd tagged POV. Redthoreau restored the section without the POV-section tag. Cute.) | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: Redthoreau has been blocked five times for edit warring | |||
<!-- You're 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: ] ''whole'' article talk page subsection contains our attempt to resolve the dispute over the POV-section tag -- that Redthoreau deleted '''''four times''''' within 24 hours. | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
The dispute's not been resolved. | |||
Just to give you an idea how bad this is, a little over two years ago, Misplaced Pages:'''''Vandalism''''' stated: | |||
<blockquote style="background-color:rgb(100%,100%,100%); padding-top:4px;padding-right:10px;padding-bottom:4px;padding-left:10px; border:solid 1px rgb(0%,0%,33%);"> | |||
Misplaced Pages vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:<br /> | |||
;Improper use of dispute tags: ] tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. | |||
</blockquote> -- ] 08:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: '''REPLY BY REDTHOREAU''' --- To specifically answer the "charges" against me, which I believe are misrepresentative of the collective reality of what went on ... '''''' Revert # 1 occurred when the article was already tagged for POV on the top, Rico then decided that he would also at his sole discretion tag this section, which I in good faith found to be redundant - as I state in the edit diff: <small>"Pov is already up top"</small>. '''''' On "revert" # 2, an editor as previously mentioned had blanked the entire section and a regular revert was not possible due to an edit conflict. As a result I had to click on an old version of the article and copy and paste that section back in. I must've copied a version of the article that did not include the tag, however that was not intentional. '''''' "Revert" # 3 came after Rico removed parts of the section that he solely believed were POV, leaving the impression with me that he had alleviated his concern which we had been discussing ad nauseum on the talk page ''(On July 2 from 00:06-00:53 I had '''8''' TP replys to Rico on a host of issues)''. Thus I then removed the tag, adding in my diff = <small>"seeing that the initial sole tagger has removed a part and edited the section, rmv tag – '''if editor (Rico) disagrees still, please revert me”'''</small>. Moreover, I would add that this particular tag was only there because Rico believed it should be - which I believe is a misrepresentation of the purpose of a tag ''(i.e. the sole opinion of one editor who is unhappy with the printed and thus included reality on a matter)''. '''''' In reference to revert # 4 - It was brought up on the TP that an editor objected to the inclusion of "Pinochet's" name in a quote in the section, so in an attempt to alleviate their concern I removed it and then thus removed the tag ''(which Rico, it’s initial tagger had not mentioned in many hours)'' - stating in the diff <small>"rmv Pinochet from quote inserting with hopes of alleviating TP concern on neutrality".</small> (Cont ...) | |||
: All throughout the process of working with Rico I have attempted above and beyond to work on his concerns. The article talk page is littered with numerous responses of mine to Rico as he would furiously log remark after remark in what I believed was a ]entious manner. It is my view that in this instance Rico was using the tag not to address particular concerns as I repeatedly asked him what he specifically wanted fixed to remove the tag, but yet to de-validate the section because he stated on the talk page that he found a NY Times Op-ed and Christian Science Monitor article not to be reliable sources ''(in the case of the Op-ed as I pointed out to him several times, it was in reference to the writers actual opinion, where the necessity would seem self evident)''. I would further add that since I last removed the tag yesterday, nearly a day has gone by where <u>no other editor</u> has '''added the tag back in''', confirming my belief that ] was not an obvious POV concern, but yet a section which Rico personally disliked for reasons outside of wiki policy. As I before the last removal <small>"In order for the POV tag to remain, you are going to have to demonstrate some evidence or basis for your diagnosis. Not merely that you don't like the sources"</small> (Cont ...) | |||
: In addition, it has always been my understanding from moderators that tagging an article is supposed to occur after there is TP discussion & consensus and include a list of the specific issues that need to be addressed to remove the tag. '''Rico never did this'''. I believe he was using the tag in a drive-by manner to basically tell others "ignore this section that I personally don't agree with" - which I believe is fundamentally not what the tag should be used for. My intention was never to violate 3RR and in the heat of the constant editing of an article that was being barraged by the minute with new additions, I felt that I was acting in accordance with wiki policy, and being more than collaborative with an editor ''(i.e. Rico)'' who is difficult to work with as he responds back with flippant and seems to leave no room for compromise. Read my short to Rico and decide for yourselves if it appears I am trying to work with him ??? Whenever he objected to something or a source I removed it. ---- I however from here on out will bow out of this article all together to avoid further conflict with Rico on the matter. I apologize for the lengthy retort, however I believe Rico has misrepresented the reality with his nomination. ] (])RT 16:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Re: '''''' A section can be tagged as POV, even if an article is tagged POV. Redthoreau deleted the article POV tag too: | |||
:: <small>(edit summary: "rmv tag for whole article, there is no specific TP discussion on tag's continuation, if someone wishes to create one with specifics then please re-tag and do so")</small> | |||
::That left ''no'' POV tag on the article, negating Redthoreau's argument that an article POV tag and a section POV tag were too many POV tags. | |||
::Re: '''''' You knew the tag had been there -- because you deleted it, I restored it, and we were discussing it. | |||
::Re: '''''' Just because I deleted something from the section, that didn't mean the dispute had been resolved. | |||
::Re: '''''' Redthoreau wrote, "I would add that this particular tag was only there because Rico believed it should be - which I believe is a misrepresentation of the purpose of a tag ''(i.e. the sole opinion of one editor who is unhappy with the printed and thus included reality on a matter)''." | |||
::Re: '''''' This is patent nonsense. "''One'' editor" ''can'' add a POV-section tag. Furthermore, the editor that deleted the section believed, as I did, that the section didn't belong. | |||
::Concerning your removal of Pinochet's name, you can't just remove something -- that a third editor objects to, that was ''not'' what I said was the dispute -- from a section and declare the dispute resolved. | |||
::When you wrote, in your edit summary, "with hopes of alleviating TP concern on neutrality," you ''admitted'' you didn't ''know'' if the dispute had been resolved. | |||
::Re: '''''' There is no Misplaced Pages policy that allows for the removal of a dispute tag just because the tagger has not mentioned it in "many hours." | |||
::I'd "mentioned" it, 18:51, July 1, 2009 and you deleted the POV-section tag the fourth time 09:22, July 2, 2009. | |||
::I post, Redthoreau replies, I reply, etc. -- and this makes me "tendentious"? C'mon. This isn't even a defense. | |||
::The rest of this paragraph tries to question my motives. I expressed my concerns, and even specified an exact thing that could have been done to resolve the dispute. | |||
::The fact that no other editor replaced the tag after a "nearly a day," "confirms" nothing. | |||
::Redthoreau wrote, "In order for the POV tag to remain, you are going to have to demonstrate some evidence or basis for your diagnosis. Not merely that you don't like the sources" | |||
::A POV tag only alerts editors to the existence of a dispute, not that the section is actually POV. That I had not "demonstrate some evidence or basis for diagnosis," is just Redthoreau's opinion, and it does not justify the repeated removal of the tag within a 24-hour period. ''That's'' tendentious. | |||
::Your "understanding ... that tagging an article is supposed to occur after there is TP discussion & consensus," is inaccurate. | |||
::An <s>article</s> section may be tagged, and ''then'' a discussion should be initiated promptly on the talk page, which is exactly what I did. | |||
::Your understanding that the discussion must, "include a list of the specific issues that need to be addressed to remove the tag," is not exactly correct. | |||
::When an editor puts a POV tag on a section, the editor should initiate a discussion on the talk page, with enough specificity to enable the resolution of the dispute. | |||
::'''Concern Expressed:''' I wrote, "My main concern is that we not have sections that invite editors to inject their opinions into the article, and then cite opinion pieces or less-than-reliable sources, just to get the opinions they want into the article." | |||
::'''Proposed Resolution:''' I wrote, "I think the subsections should be deleted. Anything that (really) complies with ] and ] can be incorporated into the article." | |||
::So I ''had'' included enough specificity to enable the resolution of the dispute. | |||
::"Redthoreau's opinion" that "'''Rico never did this,'''" runs aground on the facts. | |||
::Redthoreau wrote, "I believe he was using the tag in a drive-by manner to basically tell others 'ignore this section that I personally don't agree with' - which I believe is fundamentally not what the tag should be used for." | |||
::This is just Redthoreau's unsubstantiated conjecture that I was editing in bad faith. | |||
::I have already pointed out that I initiated a discussion on the talk page, with enough specificity to enable the resolution of the dispute. | |||
::Redthoreau wrote, "My intention was never to violate 3RR". | |||
::Maybe not, but you did. You've been blocked for edit warring five times. You ''knew'' that you were continually deleting the dispute tag, within a short period of time, even as we discussed it. Read ]. | |||
::Redthoreau wrote that I am "difficult to work with" and "seem to leave no room for compromise." | |||
::Within a period of less than 24 hours!? | |||
::"Read my short replies to Rico and decide for yourselves if it appears I am trying to work with him ???" | |||
::Irrelevant. You were discussing on the talk page while deleting the tag from the article page, again and again and again. | |||
::Redthoreau wrote, "Whenever he objected to something or a source I removed it." | |||
::That's not true. I objected to the existence of the section itself! You didn't delete it. | |||
::Content from the section could have been incorporated into the article elsewhere. | |||
::And this doesn't mean you didn't delete the POV-section tag again and again and again from the article. | |||
::Redthoreau wrote, "I however from here on out will bow out of this article all together to avoid further conflict with Rico on the matter." That'd be sad (if a fact). I just wanted you to stop edit warring, and specifically, '''''don't remove POV dispute tags again and again and again within a 24 hour period unless the dispute's been resolved.''''' You can avoid further conflict with me in that way. | |||
::I see that you haven't admitted you were edit warring, accepted that you mayn't summarily delete POV dispute tags while they're being discussed, or apologized for having made me waste my time keeping putting the dispute tag back in. | |||
::I note that you only deny that one of the four reverts, were reverts. Even if your arguments are all accepted, that leaves three within a 24-hour period. | |||
::Redthoreau, before you go, there is one more thing you need to do. | |||
::<big>'''''You'''''</big> put back the dispute tag! -- ] 19:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
I'm not really happy with this thread - it isn't long and tedious enough. Could you add some more text that no-one will read, please? ] (]) 22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: Life has moved on. There have been 100's of edits since rv4. Stale ] (]) 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you for making it clear that editors can violate 3RR -- as long as they reply to a WP:AN3 notice with a long and tedious retort, that no-one will read. -- ] 22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::This has nothing to do with the long reply. It has to do with the fact that the reverts were nearly 24 hours ago and have stopped since then. There's no point doing anything. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I reported the 3RR less than three hours after the fourth revert. It sounds like "there's no point doing anything" about 3RR violations, if the violator knows to reply to a WP:AN3 notice with a "long and tedious" "retort", that "no-one will read". --- ] 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: Rico, I will drop the back and forth here, and not respond. I also apologize for my part in the matter. William, I appreciate your judgment and will do my best to avoid similar conflicts in the future, thanks. ] (])RT 22:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: I accept your apology. If you edit war again, I will not create a notice here. I've learned. WP:AN3 can be gamed. -- ] 22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::It's not about gaming or about the retort; ], and there's no point blocking people when there's not a problem going on; if the edit war is over and both parties understand that they will be blocked if they continue, there's no need for anything to be done. Like I said already, since the reverting ended over 24 hours ago there's no point blocking either of you, assuming you've both learned how to engage in discussion rather than reverting. I suggest you move on, because sulking here and taking pot-shots at other editors is not constructive. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Three hours after the last revert, no prevention was in order? | |||
::::I ''had'' to notify Redthoreau on his/her talk page. | |||
::::Redthoreau ''had'' to be given time to respond. | |||
::::Once a long and tedious retort is posted, that no one will read, it's over. | |||
::::How does this noticeboard ''ever'' work? | |||
::::We "learned how to engage in discussion rather than reverting"? | |||
::::I stopped putting the POV-section tag back! | |||
::::Sorry, but this was a textbook case. Redthoreau didn't even deny three of the four reverts. | |||
::::I'm not taking pot shots at other editors -- at the ''noticeboard'', maybe. You can stop replying too. | |||
::::Face it. I did just what I was supposed to do, including desisting from the edit war, and this noticeboard didn't work. -- ] 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Just to clarify, you wrote, "there's no point blocking people when ... both parties understand that they will be blocked if they continue." Does that mean that if I put the POV-section tag back, I will be blocked? -- ] 23:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: Rico, thanks for accepting my apology. You won't have to worry about even a 1RR from me, as I am bowing out of that article altogether as I earlier stated. For what it’s worth, my intention was never to "game" the system, but rather to explain my side of the story. Best of luck to you. ] (])RT 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::You're welcome. I never meant to imply that ''you intended'' to game the noticeboard -- just that it can be gamed. I'd reply with a vigorous defense, too. I think it's funny. Sorry if I caused you any consternation or stress. I harbor no animosity toward you. Respect. -- ] 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: malformed report) == | |||
* Page: {{article|The Hardy Boys}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Ricardiana}} | |||
<!-- 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: Not sure how to do this; the reverts are obvious between Ricardiana and me. Also see the Talk page of the article. Several other editors are complaining of various issues. | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
*{{AN3|m}} You linked to the wrong page, and you didn't provide any diffs of reverts; please actually read the instructions before filing reports here. | |||
*As for the edit warring, it looks like everyone is involved in discussion at the talk page now and people are no longer reverting, so there's no need to do anything. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 55h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Childfree}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|70.171.239.21}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
] (]) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:{{AN3|b|55 hours}} based on previous block(s). Thanks, <font face="Arial"> ] (])</font> 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: ''2009-07-03T21:21:07 Jéské Couriano (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 70.171.239.21 (talk) with an expiry time of 2009-07-06T04:04:54Z (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)'' ] (]) 14:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: IPs rangeblocked for 72 hours) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Talim}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|58.69.116.54}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|58.69.116.63}} | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talim&oldid=289820692 | |||
* 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
* Further reverts: , , , , , ,, , | |||
* 15th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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 --> | |||
* No talk page discussion has occured, this user's reverts are being cancelled by many editors. | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
* Rather than a simple 3RR violation, the edit warring is spread out over time, but with no discussion or explanation. | |||
* User appears to wish to use a country flagicon for an article subject birthplace, contrary to the general guidelines in ] | |||
* User appears to wish to remove a reference from the article. | |||
* Both User IPs' entire contribution history appears to be reversions. | |||
* The edits by the two different IP addresses are probably made by the same editor. | |||
--] (]) 22:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::{{AN3|b|72 hours}} Thanks, <font face="Arial"> ] (])</font> 02:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: All warned) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Clarence Thomas}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|RafaelRGarcia}} | |||
<!-- 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: (see below) | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: 20:56, 3 July 2009 (reverted ) | |||
* 2nd revert: 22:43, 3 July 2009 (reverted ) | |||
* 3rd revert: 23:30, 3 July 2009 (reverted ) | |||
* 4th revert: 00:17, 4 July 2009 (reverted ) | |||
* 5th revert: 00:37, 4 July 2009 (same) | |||
<!-- 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: ''subsequently deleted by user'' , and | |||
<!-- You're 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 | |||
* Diff of notification of user about this report: | |||
<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::This complaint is untrue. My changes to the article were reverted twice by Ferrylodge, and I changed the text of my additions in response to his complaints. Changing the text means it's not a 3RR violation. Dodd reverted my edits to another section of the article twice, and I reverted back. I have only reverted twice. In addition, I am the sole liberal actively editing the Clarence Thomas article, and Dodd and Ferrylodge are both conservatives in agreement about most everything, which puts me at a disadvantage. ] (]) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
For example, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=300173678&oldid=300169873 vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=300176839&oldid=300175430 . The difference was changing the wording about sworn testimony, because of Ferrylodge's complaint at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Clarence_Thomas#Goldstein . Dodd's complaint on this Edit Warring page, therefore, is in bad faith. ] (]) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
(undent) I was in the process of writing up my own 3RR complaint about RafaelRGarcia when Simon Dodd started this section. I count more reverts than Simon Dodd counted: | |||
*Revert #1 (removing author names and book title from footnote at 3 July 21:36): | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300119741 | |||
*Revert #2 (removing Goldstein paragraph at 4 July 00:56): | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300149899 | |||
*Revert #3 (removing Goldstein paragraph at 4 July 02:43) | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300163647 | |||
*Revert #4 (removing Goldstein paragraph at 4 July 03:30) | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300169337 | |||
*Revert #5 (restoring statement that was removed in the previous edit: “the paper's editors decided not to proceed with additional investigation and reporting on the subject” at 4 July 04:17) | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300173678 | |||
*3RR Warning at 4 July 04:25 | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=300175430&oldid=300174498 | |||
*Revert #6 (restoring statement that “the paper's editors decided not to proceed with additional investigation and reporting on the subject” at 4 July 04:37) | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=300175430 | |||
] (]) 05:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: Revert 1 was because you misplaced the citation; it didn't belong at the end of that sentence, and I replaced the citation in a different place right after, where it belonged: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=300121992&oldid=300121671 . | |||
:::Revert 2 is not a revert - Dodd did not put that quote in today. My action is an edit (and you agreed with the removal on the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AClarence_Thomas&diff=300176907&oldid=300176579). Even though you would like to be able to count any disagreement with your or Dodd's edits as a "revert," that's not how the rules work. | |||
:::Reverts 5 and 6 are also not reverts - I changed the text of the paragraph each time in response to your input on the talk page. It appears both of you are in bad faith, and want to squash opposition to your views. ] (]) 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Re. revert 1, you removed the author name and book title without ever restoring them. Re. revert 2, you removed the paragraph today, and it doesn't matter when the paragraph was first written, nor does it matter whether I liked the paragraph. Re. reverts 5 and 6, you restored without changing the stuff I quoted above.] (]) 05:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Re: revert 1: then you are essentially complaining about my footnote formatting, which does not rise to the level of a revert complaint. Re: revert 2: I do not think a revert means what you think it means. The Goldstein paragraph was edited out by me, and I gave my reasons in the summary, citing WP policy, and then you agreed with the removal! Re. reverts 5 and 6: the "stuff quoted above" is what the cited book says. Your word does not counteract a reliable-source book, unfortunately. I did change the relevant parts of the paragraph in response to your comments on the talk page. ] (]) 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Per the notice at the very top of this page, do ''not'' use this page to continue your argument. You have all already said your piece, now you might as well let an uninvolved user make a decision. The more you write here, the less likely anyone is to read it. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 05:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Ok, I have reviewed this report and here's what I think. RafaelRGarcia, you have some misunderstandings about what reverting means...first of all, changing the text that you restore can still be a revert. If the issue is whether or not to include some information at all, then it's considered a revert if you add it once and then re-add it later in a differently-worded way. Also, it's not true that footnote formatting "does not rise to the level of a revert complaint"; ''any'' change, no matter how trivial, can be a revert. This website has seen major revert wars fought over ]. | |||
::SimonDodd, you too have been edit warring (over the inclusion of the Goldstein quote). Both you and RafaelRGarcia believe your own rationales on the talk page are right; that doesn't give either of you permission to revert. Once it's become obvious that two people are disagreeing over something, both of you need to keep to the talk page, no matter how convincing you believe you are; don't make any change to the article until you've gotten clear consensus and permission from other editors there. | |||
::Ferrylodge, you also made a couple reverts (over the Washington Post and pornography thing). Again, this is something that should be kept to the talk page. It appears that now both you and SimonDodd are sticking to the talk page, which is good. (For what it's worth, I don't see a problem with the inclusion of that paragraph; it looks to be a brief summary of the Anita Hill sub-article.) | |||
::The current version of the article is RafaelRGarcia's version, I think because in both of those disputes he was more adamant about getting the "last word" whereas SimonDodd and Ferrylodge decided to stop reverting. That doesn't mean I'm endorsing this version; it just means I think you guys should ask some people to provide third opinions at the talkpage and reach a consensus over what to do about those two disputed paragraphs (one about the Goldstein quote, one about the pr0n). Since the reverting has stopped, I see no reason to block anyone or protect the page—RafaelGarcia has violated the 3RR, but I don't want to block him just yet because it would prevent him from participating in the discussion that I keep saying you need to have. If he performs another revert over either of these issues, though, I will block him. | |||
::({{AN3|w}} all three users.) <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 06:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Total failure of judgment. RafaelGarcia clearly THINKS he understands 3RR and how to game it. You just showed him he's right, that he can get away with gaming the system. ] (]) 18:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:So RafaelGarcia avoiding a block is "gaming the system", but Simon Dodds going forum shopping after is enemy doesn't get blocked is.... what, exactly? If you're going to question one user like that, you'd better question both. | |||
:As I already explained over and over again, there is no reason to block right now. ''If'' RafaelGarcia continues reverting after what has happened in the past couple hours, ''then'' there will be a reason to block, and rest assured he will be blocked. But if that doesn't happen, there's no reason to. Rather than leaving a template response and a thoughtless block, I chose to give all three users a long and thought-out explanation of edit warring and what was going on; unlike you, I believe teaching people how to be better editors is preferable to mindless blocking. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 19:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::"Forum shopping"? That's an inflammatory charge to raise without a shred of support. Forum shopping implies a deliberate attempt to gain a more receptive audience for a greivance. I raised the issue at the ''general admin's noticeboard'' - and did so because I wasn't sure that this was the correct place to raise such an appeal after a decision has been made. And since admins will generally and understandably review other administrators' decisions for clear error, the better to foster collegiality and quid pro quo, it is far from clear that AN is a friendly forum! <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: warned) == | |||
* Page: ] | |||
* User: {{userlinks|SuzukS}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
During recent change patrol, I noticed the user had created an article that was a copyright violation (]). I've tried having a rational conversation with him, but his uncivil behavior and edit-warring on my talk page is unnecessary. ] ] 11:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I have warned SuzukS that an editor is allowed to remove comments from their own talk page. Reverting has not continued since this report was filed. If he doesn't get the message, a block should be issued. ] (]) 12:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you. ] ] 12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|2009 Honduran coup d'état}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|166.204.226.8}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not.")</small> | |||
<!-- 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: Practically the whole talk page is filled with discussion of this, from ] through ] | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
IP keeps inserting unsourced, blatant POV and is regularly being reverted by ''several'' users, but the IP keeps reverting the reverts. At least two users have put "rv v" when reverting the IP's edits. -- ] 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 00:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. It looks the user is ] now (also blocked), "Correcting the notion that this was a coup d'etat when it clearly is not." | |||
::I'm gonna try to get an IP range protection, if there is such a thing, before the article is globally semi-protected again. -- ] 01:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::The article has been semi-protected. I don't think a range block is possible that will hit both of those addresses; it is greater than a /16 range. ] (]) 02:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 4 days) == | |||
*] violation on | |||
{{Article|Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira}}. {{3RRV|Jackiestud}}: Time reported: 11:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "did you see i ´ve inserted aome 20 new footnotes? After an hour of work you just come and reverte ir??!!")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "use talk page and try to prove why musicabrasileira i snot reliabel. aim affraid is a widely known source lwhich presnets texts from revista veja 9the alrgets news weekly magazine)")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "are you brazilian? have you read the sources on the talk page? do you speak portuguese? have youread her two interviews?")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "VERY reliable sources")</small> | |||
* Diff of warning: | |||
This is an ongoing ] issue which is being discussed on ]. Know problem user in this area (see ]) keeps restoring unsourced ] to spirituality section, removing OR and BLP sourcing templates, and inserting sources that fail ] (some are being discussed on ]). As this is a BLP, and I have been removing biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons, I feel my actions have been correct. I should have probably brought it here sooner, but after each reinsertion I attempted to discuss this on the talk page and BLP noticeboard, but Jackiestud has failed to usefully engage in discussion each time. I tagged the article some time ago to give editors time to improve the sourcing in an attempt to avoid blocking, but this has failed to produce any improvements and the OR (only supported by synthesis from a numerology website) should be removed. | |||
(Added later) I'd just like to make clear that I have stopped removing the OR/contentious parts as it became clear the editor wouldn't listen to reason. It has also been shown on ] that the new sources do not indeed meet ]. | |||
—] <small>]</small> 11:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:'''Result''' - 4 days. This editor violated ], but has also added fanciful ] material to a BLP article with no awareness of the problems it creates. ] appears to have learned nothing from . I think this should be considered an ongoing problem. Unless this editor can demonstrate through their actions that they are willing to follow our policies, I believe that an indef block should be considered. ] (]) 15:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|History of terrorism}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|92.239.38.135}} | |||
* versions: Right after his initial block was lifted l More today | |||
* See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:History_of_terrorism#92.239.38.135_vandalization | |||
Edit warring. See next report for detail ] (]) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] (result: 24h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|History of terrorism}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Reddi}} | |||
* | |||
* | |||
Both sides are edit warring, though there is no technical violation. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. My sympathy lies with hiving off the defn to its own article, but my opinion is not definitive ] (]) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
==] reported by Pmanderson (Result: 24h)== | |||
*] violation on | |||
{{Article|meran}}. {{3RRV|Noclador}}: Time reported: 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
* Revert comparison ("compare"): (). | |||
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' | |||
# () <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ]; Um - please keep with the standard format used for all 116 comunes!. (])")</small> | |||
# () <small>(edit summary: "stop changing the standard format and accept that there was a move in line with the naming convention. please move on and let this discussion rest")</small> | |||
# () <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ] identified as ] to last revision by ]. (])")</small> | |||
# () <small>(edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by ]; Your personal opinion does not constitute a reason to put this line on the top of the article. (])")</small> | |||
Four exact reverts in less than half an hour, using Twinkle. | |||
All four of them are to edits by me; but two of mine are efforts at novel solutions, marking that there is a dispute. I was not attempting to edit war; I intend to walk away, and was trying to tag the article without changing the text at issue. Would the closing admin consider a tag? I do not intend to disturb the text for a while, so it may not need to be protected. ] <small>]</small> 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: the article in question was moved and Pmanderson refuses to accept that and has decided to wage a personal revert war against the consensus and the subsequent move of the article by administrators. all comunes of the province are in a standardized format and that is what I and ] did; now if Pmanderson has a problem with the move or the standardized format for articles, then he can discuss this, but reverting the standardized format, accusing other editors of "nationalist renaming", putting 2 neutrality tags on the pages when he can push through his changes, continuing his lonely stance that, everybody else besides him is wrong and now filing this report... and not to forget putting his personal opinion on top of the article ... therefore I request this case to be dismissed, as I was trying to preserve the article integrity against one editors personal opinion. --] (]) 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::In short, "article integrity" entitles Noclador to revert war. | |||
::The rest of this is also fiction; there was considerable opposition to the move, and Ian Spackman started the request to move back. ] <small>]</small> 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
24h ] (]) 07:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Regarding this report, it should be known that the nominatior, PManderson, adopted an unconstructive approach during the whole debate over the move, often resorting to insults about other users' nationalities rather than focus on factual arguments. When the decision about the move did not go his way, he ignored the decision but instead of trying to challenge it on the talk page, he took to restoring the old name (Merano instead of Meran) in the article. Although he did it in slightly different ways so that he could file this report without having technically violated 3RR himself, all that noclador has done is to restore the page to use the name that was the result of the move. A report has been filed on PManderson over his behaviour, including his repeated insults and edit warring, for which he has a long series of blocks in the past.] (]) 07:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I don't agree to PMAnderson's interpretation of the revert. Ok, I voted as Noclador the move to Meran, but there are two points which we can state objectively here and which warrant in my view a lift of the 24 h. | |||
#PManderson's general style of discussion is often provcative and full of ad hominem insinuations when we would have hoped for instructive arguments instead. This unproductive stance is again evident in his revert summaries: and . | |||
#He is also factually wrong in his reverts. Actually, Noclador followed a general procedure implemented in most of the 116 articles on municiplaities in South Tyrol according to which the order of the names, links etc. in the article follow the language on which the article's English name is based on. What Noclador did was just to establish the same order as everywhere else. This has been - unchallenged and by consensus - done for months now to ensure uniformity, see e.g. , . Therefore PMAnderson's reverts were the product of a quite uninformed and unfortunately aggressive stance and Noclador's 24 ban should be lifted. Regards ] (]) 09:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I agree with Gun Powder Ma above, the ban should be lifted. The result of the move discussion was to change the title and PManderson was well aware of that, so his edits were not in good faith. If somebodyt would change every reference to ] into ''Londres'' in that article, it would hardly be edit warring to change it back. The first two reverts by Noclador simply restored the text to agree with the title after disruptive edits by PManderson who was well aware of the decision to move the article. Given that, the block of Noclador should be lifted.] (]) 10:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: ''He is also factually wrong in his reverts'' - this is not the place to discuss content ] (]) 10:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::In principle I agree, this is not the place to discuss content, ''unless'' it is directly related to the issue of 3RR. Restoring an article to its established form is allowed, whereas edit warring isn't. The fact remains that the first two edits by Noclador simply restored the text to conform to the title. That is allowed and the block is not motivated.] (]) 11:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
==] reported by GHcool (Result: Both users edit-warring egregiously; given staleness, no action)== | |||
*] violation on | |||
{{Article|Universities and antisemitism}}. {{3RRV|DePiep}}: Time reported: 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
* Revert comparison ("compare"): (). | |||
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' | |||
# <small>(edit summary: " rm. No talk no edit."</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 300474976 by GHcool (talk): As I said: talk first.")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 300480290 by GHcool (talk) At least you're talking. See you there.")</small> | |||
As explained to DePiep ] he/she mustn't ] material ] to ]. DePiep does not seem to respond to this line of reasoning. --] (]) 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
* Both {{user|GHcool}} and {{user|DePiep}} are edit-warring egregiously, and both are behaving poorly enough to warrant blocks. However, since there has been no activity on the page for the past 18 hours or so, I will take a huge leap of faith and assume that both parties are committed to resolving this dispute without further edit-warring. I will watchlist the page, and further edit-warring - even if <3RR/24 hours, given the atrocious history here - will result in blocks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Bignole}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
Minor differences may be present due to intermediate edits, but the reverts consistently consist of the deletion of the last paragraph in ]. | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
In the resolution of the conflict, it should be taken into account that the nature of the film's universe implies that even after being suggested dead, characters are bound to be reintroduced as having been 'repaired' had their outcome been sufficiently unclear. Taking this into account, the provided information intends to aid in the reader's ability to determine whether a character is bound to appear in a future installment in the franchise. --] (]) 02:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
==] reported by ] on behalf of those at ] (result: more info) == | |||
This user likes to edit war. He pays no attention to wiki ettiquette. He makes wholesale changes without discussion, then insists that someone else defend the status quo, rather than he justifies his changes. When asked to discuss, he preaches. He pays no attention to the information brought to his attention by others. The list of "transgressions" and "irritations" since 21 June is quite large. Most recent behaviour illustrated at: | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
I have no interest in putting up with him, but on the other hand, the articles he is attacking are the result of much work and consensus by many editors, and I am loath to allow this person to destroy all that work. ] (]) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
: No idea what you're on about guv. This is WP:AN3. Or possibly WP:ANEW, depending on where you came from. Have you considered using the template? ] (]) 21:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Fred Singer}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|Andonee}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: (as ], see below) | |||
* 3rd revert: (as ]) | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
* 6th revert: | |||
* 7th revert: | |||
* 8th revert: | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: by ] | |||
Raul also identified the IP (and another IP) and the user name as belonging to the same person, but there are also 4 reverts under the user name within 24 hours. --] (]) 16:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:'''Result''' - 48 hours for prolonged edit warring. ] (]) 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Premier League 2009–10}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|86.16.133.48}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
* 6th revert: | |||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. --> | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
<!-- You're 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: | |||
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> | |||
I will note that the above attempt to resolve the dispute took place on the offender's own talk page, as opposed to the article talk page. I hope that won't make any difference. – ]] 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:'''Result''' - 24 hours to the IP for 3RR. I note that Soccer-holic edit-warred as well. He is at 4 reverts and PeeJay is at 3 reverts, but they were both reverting unsourced information. Other admins may impose additional sanctions if they think it necessary. ] (]) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
* Page: {{article|Fan edit}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|LoganPublishing}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|124.8.72.192}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|124.8.72.177}} | |||
* User: {{userlinks|124.8.111.84}} | |||
* Previous version reverted to: | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
* 6th revert: | |||
* 7th revert: | |||
* Diff of 3RR warning: | |||
* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
This editor and his IP accounts appear to be a ] with a clear ] regarding the website digital-fanedits.com - editor's sole contributions have been to insert links about the contested site, or remove information about rival sites. When warned about 3RR, tried to claim other editors were either shills for his rivals, or vandals. ] (]) 21:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 15:41, 22 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 |
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
- See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
- If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.
You must notify any user you have reported.
You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~
to do so.
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
- Additional notes
- When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
- The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
- Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
- Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
- Definition of edit warring
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
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. |
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) | |||||||||
1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 | 1167 |
1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 | 1177 |
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:Xuangzadoo reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Page protected indef)
Page: List of religious slurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xuangzadoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270059834 by 25 Cents FC (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
- 16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270040967 by Ratnahastin (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
- 16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
- 01:28 15 January 2025 "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
- 11:55, 14 January 2025 11:55 "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of religious slurs."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
- 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Kanglu */ add"
Comments:
All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
- Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
- Xuangzadoo (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- More reverts , can someone do something? - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Page protected I also note the user has been alerted to CTOPS, which I protected the page under, so there will be no room for argument if this behavior continues. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:GiggaHigga127 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Conor Benn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GiggaHigga127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: clarification on style guide at user talk page
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the light middleweight and middleweight divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, MOS:BOXING, says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has notably competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was welterweight for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.
As far as middleweight goes, Benn has never competed anywhere close to that weight class. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had a similar RfC regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. WP:IAR would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on this, it could be meaty as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --Dennis Definition (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --Dennis Definition (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on this, it could be meaty as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Xpander1 reported by User:MimirIsSmart (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: Tübingen School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xpander1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 974048061 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Self-reverting as per Misplaced Pages:3RRNO"
- 06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270517034 by Xpander1 (talk): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
- 22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270516481 by Xpander1 (talk): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
- 22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270516027 by Wikishovel (talk)"
- 22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270489731 by Xpander1 (talk): Please add the new sources to Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School Best."
- Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270482917 by Wikishovel (talk) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
- 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Redirecting page the newly created page"
- 19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 974048061 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
- 19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270267643 by Xpander1 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
- 02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from WP:NOATT - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page"
Comments:
Extremely aggressive edit warring. Xpander1 had expanded a redirect to a page with no issue but decided it would be better to just create a page, hence a discussion at Special:Diff/1270341854. Editor decided to "redact contribution in protest", initially blanking then resorting to redirecting. User:Wikishovel would assist in reverting these changes with Xpander1 reacting negatively, violating 3RR to get it erased. Editor had created redirects such as Protestant and Catholic Tübingen Schools and Tübingen school (Germany), with Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School being where he did a cut-and-paste move from original article. Has no intention to resolve dispute any time soon. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in the WP:Teahouse, and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Misplaced Pages must distinguish between valid-article-creators and redirect-page-creators. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair. Xpander (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Wetman and on the article's info page. Xpander (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at WP:Teahouse#Made an article in place of an redirect. Please see also User talk:Voorts#Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School and Talk:Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School. Wikishovel (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Like Wikishovel, I am mystified—no, make it stunned—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the page creation log isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the software does, that by design no one has control over. Wetman is going to get credit for creating the page, yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the article by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.
Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of page ownership. I strongly remind them not to expect rewards for their editing.
I also reject their argument that 3RRNO#1 shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is inarguable that, especially given their statement that this was a protest over not getting credit for something no one really expects credit for, they did so in a manner calculated to cause maximum disruption and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to game the system. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Addendum: I also commend WP:NO THANKS to Xpander1's attention. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
User:92.238.20.255 reported by User:Expert on all topics (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page: Oriel High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.238.20.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Updated content"
- 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Updated content"
- 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"
- 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"
- 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: This IP is trying to censor information in that article --Expert on all topics (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Kelvintjy reported by User:Raoul mishima (Result: Stale)
Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan
User being reported: Kelvintjy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
Comments:
Hello the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the Soka Gakkai page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the Dissidence page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoul mishima (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Stale Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bbb23 you blocked this user from the page Soka Gakkai in Aug. 2024 for the same reasons. Raoul mishima (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- You also block Raoul but later unblocked him after he made his appeal. Kelvintjy (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand the user always keep targeting me. I am more of a silence contributor. I had seen how the complainant had argue with other contributor in other talk page and after a while the complainant stay silent and not touching certain topic and instead keep making edit on articles related to Soka Gakkai or Daisaku Ikeda. Now, he is making a lot of edit on Soka Gakkai International. Kelvintjy (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Ergzay reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: 1RR imposed on article)
Page: Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ergzay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270884092 by RodRabelo7 (talk) Reverting for user specifying basically WP:IDONTLIKETHIS as their reasoning"
- 18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270880207 by EF5 (talk) I believe you have reverted this edit in error so I am adding it back. Rando tweet from a random organization? The Anti-defamation league is cited elsewhere in this article and this tweet was in the article previously. I simply copy pasted it from a previous edit. ADL is a trusted source in the perennial source list WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anti-Defamation_League"
- 17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270877579 by EF5 (talk) Removing misinformation"
- 17:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270854942 by Citing (talk) Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well"
- 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Revert, this is not the purpose of the short description"
- 22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270715109 by Fakescientist8000 (talk) Elon is not a multinational"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Elon Musk." (edit: corrected diff)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC) "stop edit warring now or it all goes to ANI" (edit: added diff, fix date)
Comments:
Breach of WP:3RR (added comment after 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment added below). CNC (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:CommunityNotesContributor seems to be making a mistake here as several of those edits were of different content. You can't just list every single revert and call it edit warring. And the brief edit warring that did happen stopped as I realized I was reverting the wrong thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270879523 Ergzay (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Read the bright read box at WP:3RR (. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:3RR:
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
– Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- Well TIL on that one as that's the first time I've ever heard of that use case and I've been on this site for 15+ years. 3RR in every use I've ever seen it is about back and forth reverting of the _same content_ within a short period of time. It's a severe rule break where people are clearly edit warring the same content back and forth. Reverting unrelated content on the page (edits that are often clearly vandalism-like edits, like the first two listed) would never violate 3RR in my experience. Ergzay (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd honestly love an explanation on that rule as I can't figure out why it makes sense. You don't want to limit people's ability to fix vandalism on a fast moving page. Ergzay (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:3RR:
There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons
. – RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- No I mean even in the wider sense. Like why does it make sense to limit the ability to revert unrelated content on the same page? I can't figure out why that would make sense. The 3RR page doesn't explain that. Ergzay (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism is an exemption. But vandalism has a narrow definition. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:3RR:
- WP:3RR:
- @Objective3000 So let me get this straight, you're saying making unrelated reverts of unrelated content in a 24 hour period hits 3RR? You sure you got that right? As people violate that one all the darn time. Never bothered to report people as it's completely innocent. If you're heavily involved on a page and reverting stuff you'll hit that quick and fast for a rapidly updated page. Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should be added, that I was in the process of reverting my own edit after the above linked comment, but someone reverted it before I could get to it.
- The 18:12 edit was me undoing what was presumed to be a mistaken change by EF5 that I explained in my edit comment as they seemed to think that "some random twitter account" was being used as a source. That revert was not reverted. The 18:31 edit was a revert of an "i don't like it" edit that someone else made, it was not a revert of a revert of my own change. Ergzay (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" followed by "cannot see the pertinence of this" after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. Ergzay (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is a CTOP? Ergzay (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- A CTOP is a WP:CTOP. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is a CTOP? Ergzay (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like you have seven reverts in two days in a CTOP. I've even seen admins ask someone else to revert instead of violating a revert rule themselves. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- We can agree to disagree, but the reasons I called it IDONTLIKEIT was because the person who was reverted described the ADL, who is on the perennial sources list as being reliable, in their first edit description with the wording "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" followed by "cannot see the pertinence of this" after another editor restored the content with a different source, which is the edit I reverted. Ergzay (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Frankly, I thought your characterization of IDONTLIKEIT in your edit summary was improper and was thinking of reverting you, but didn't want to be a part of what I thought was your edit war. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- In Ergzay's defense some of these reverts do seem to be covered under BLP, but many do not and I am concerned about the battleground attitude that Ergzay is taking. The edit summaries "Discussion ongoing and it's incorrect as well" and "Removing misinformation" also seems to be getting into righting great wrongs territory as the coverage happened whether you agree with the analysis or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages.
If your argument is that Misplaced Pages is wrong about things and you have to come in periodically to fix it; that’s not an argument that works very well on an administrative noticeboard -- and certainly not a good argument here at AN3. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- I wouldn't worry all too much about it, 1rr for the article will slow things down and is a positive outcome all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back Thanks but at this point things are too heated and people are so confident Musk is some kind of Nazi now nothing I say is gonna change anything. It's not worth the mental exhaustion I spent over the last few hours. So I probably won't be touching the page or talk page again for several days at least unless I get pinged. The truth will come out eventually, just like the last several tempest in a teapots on the Elon Musk page that eventually got corrected. Misplaced Pages is gonna be Misplaced Pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Based on the comment in response to the notification for this discussion,
"I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it"
, I was quite surprised to see that the editor didn't acquire an understanding of 3RR when previously warned for edit warring in 2020. That's sometime ago granted, but additionally a lack of awareness of CTOP, when there is an edit notice at Musk's page regarding BLP policy, is highly suggestive of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This in addition to the 3RR warning that was ignored, followed by continuing to revert other editors, and eventually arguing that it must be because I am wrong. If there is an essay based on "Everyone else must be wrong because I'm always right" I'd very much like to read it. As for this report, I primarily wanted to nip the edit war in the bud which appears to have worked for now, given the talk page warning failed to achieve anything. I otherwise remain concerned about the general WP:NOTHERE based indicators; disruptive editing, battleground attitude, and lack of willingness to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner. CNC (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that some of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers all edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of 3RR (In other words, another case of why we can't have nice things)) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- We are likely to see Ergzay at ANI at some point. But as I was thinking of asking for 1RR early today; I'm fine with that decision. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good decision. I otherwise think a final warning for edit warring is appropriate, given the 3RR violation even excluding BLPREMOVE reverts (first 4 diffs to be specific). There's nothing else to drag out here given Ergzay intends to take a step back from the Musk article, and per above, there is always the ANI route for any future incidents. CNC (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @CommunityNotesContributor My statement that you quoted there is because I'm a divisive person and people often don't like how I act on Misplaced Pages and the edits I make. People have dragged me to this place several times in the past over the years and I've always found it reasonably fair against people who are emotionally involved against dragging me down. That is why I said what I did. And as to the previous warning that you claim was me "not getting it", that was 3 reverts of the same material, and with a name 3RR the association is automatic. Edit: And I'll additionally add, I'm most certainly interested in building an accurate encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages at some point in the past lost its mind and has determined that truth seeking is not the ultimate goal, but simply regurgitating sources. I'm still very happy to use sources that exist and they should be used whenever possible, but in this modern day and age of heavily politicized and biased media, editors more than ever need to have wide open eyes and use rational thinking. Ergzay (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have decided, under CTOPS and mindful of the current situation regarding the article subject, a situation that I think we can agree is unlikely to change anytime soon and is just going to attract more contentious editing, that the best resolution here, given that some of Ergzay's reverts are concededly justified on BLP grounds and that he genuinely seems ignorant of the provision in 3RR that covers all edits (a provision that, since he still wants to know, is in response to certain battleground editors in the past who would keep reverting different material within the same 24 hours so as to comply with the letter, but not the spirit, of 3RR (In other words, another case of why we can't have nice things)) is to put the article under 1RR. It will be duly logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
User:203.115.14.139 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Semi-protected one week; IP range blocked two weeks)
Page: Paul Cézanne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 203.115.14.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- 06:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) ""
- 06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Three revert rule */ new section"
- 07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- This is straight-up vandalism. BusterD semi-protected the article for one week, and I've blocked Special:contributions/203.115.14.0/24 for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)