Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:38, 28 April 2023

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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.

User:Dilbaggg reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151646707 by LilianaUwU (talk) Go check WP:3RR 2022 editor before accusing people of WP:EW, seek a proper consensus than your personal views"
2. 09:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151309311 by Soetermans (talk) 24 hour limit passed, seek consensus, 2 editors colluding acting as owners of an article based on their personal preference is not enough, seek WP:RfC please!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Has reverted multiple editors multiple times over the last week or so to force their own version against consensus of other editors, and has accused me of being a "GTA bureaucrat" (I guess some sort of cabal?) who forces revisions (I'm pretty sure I haven't edited a GTA article before). Has also explicitly mentioned "24 hour limit passed", as if the spirit of WP:3RR wasn't violated. LilianaUwU 09:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

It is not WP:EW as WP:3RR was not broken. I requested a proper consensus to the one who removed it, but they just remove the content based on personal consensus rather than just seek ] or WP:DR from a neutral party. Again I did not break WP:3RR in 24 hours so it can't b e edit war. A group of GTA artiocle editors act as bureaucatic owners and reverts WP:RS info by any other editors based purely on personal views without giving valid reason. Is it wrong the challenge that practice? I seemply requested a proper WP:RfC and a WP:Neutral view as they remnove WP:V contents based purely on personal preferences. @soetermans, @User:TheDeviantPro and @LilianaUwU are the three doing this practice. Anyway i will leave it to the admins to decide. They also vandalize my talk page readding talk page messages which i removed which isn't allowed according to this: .

These are three out of many examples of soetermans's behavior and User:TheDeviantProUser:TheDeviantPro and LilianaUwU always seem to be back ups, like they alone dominate the GTA articles, just 3 out ofd many examples: , and as though only the three of them can decide and no one else can even if other editors comply with Wiki policy, but they just push the personal views.

Anyway now IO will leave it to admins to handle it, but I request a proper WP:RfC from neutral editors to decide the matter, and as I didn't break WP:3RR hope this does not count as WP:EW, if it does I apologise, and I won't edit again but I leave it to admins to decide, but the mansion and casino ownership are crucial WP:RS elements of the plot of the game and they simply keep removing it based on personal view and a collussion. I will leave it to admins to decide and whatever their decision I will accept. Peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, as I informed you on your talk page you can still be blocked for edit warring without breaking 3RR. 3RR is a bright-line rule, but slower edit wars are still edit wars. In fact you saying things like 24 hour limit passed sounds like you're gaming the system. — Czello 10:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:3RR =/= WP:EW. An edit war can occur even if you haven't reverted 3 times in 24 hours. As Czello said right above me, you sound like you're gaming the system by saying stuff like 24 hour limit passed. LilianaUwU 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and do not accuse other people of meatpuppeting, as you did here. You are NOT helping your case. LilianaUwU 10:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU No I am not WP:GTS as I repeatedly requested a consensus the three of you keep refusing, so I complied with the WP:3RR policy. Anyway like I said its upto admins to decide, if they think I violated the policy then I accept whatever they decide, but you sucpiciously removed my talk page warn in "meating" style to soetermans, which only he himself and admins can, if you are a regular editor I don't think you can, and thats also WP:GTS but if I am wrong on this case, I seek pardon, anyway I gave my points, I just simply want a proper WP:RfC as the mansion and casino ownership are crucial to the plot and its you three who keep removing other editors edits based on personal views colluding together withouyt even seeking a consensus, the contribution history of the GTA articles will reveal all that, and I haqve noticed this behavior from you three on all GTA articles. Anyway I did not break WP:3RR and I leave it to admins to decide now, whatever decision they take even if it goes against me, I will fully accept it. Take care. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg ...all... GTA articles...? I haven't touched a GTA article since I reverted vandalism on Untitled Grand Theft Auto game months ago. And again with the meating accusations? I'm very much a regular editor, if I see something that seems messed up (as is your comments bordering on personal attacks), it is appropriate for me to remove it, even if I'm not Soetermans or an admin. LilianaUwU 10:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg, I'm gonna repeat myself: do not baselessly accuse other editors of meatpuppeting. You're gravitating towards a block regardless of whether you had an edit war or not. LilianaUwU 10:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I edited Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas only once: the very edit that brought you to keep accusing me of meatpuppeting. LilianaUwU 10:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I accused you oif that cause you removed the talk page warn of soetermans where you falsely accused me of personalk attack whiich is what he did on my talk page and has done on other ditors even breaking WP:Civil calling their work "bullshit": . He has a habit of acting like the owner of GTA articles and I have every right to warn him for personal attacks on me, I did not attack him, warning is not the same as personal attacks. He was WP:GTS saying my edit is disruptive when he kept reverting my edit based on personal views, and this seems to be a practice on GTA article a group if editors try to push their personal views and remove contributions of other editors acting like article owners. I merely requested him to seek Wp:RfC but he instead boldy removes contents based on personal views and gives false warns of disruptive editing and you, him and User:TheDeviantPro are involved in this. There is nothing wrong in seeking a neutral WP:RfC instead of practically acting like artuicle owners, I even complied with the 700 word guide ofWP:Plot but still the cointent is removed based on the personal views of the wannabe bureaucratic owners of GTA article, this history tells it all: . Anyway i did not break WP:3RR, I had every right to request a proper consensus rather than this disruptive removal of contents, but I apologise for making the two reverts, indeed I was a bit aggressive and I seek the admin's forgivness and I should have gone for WP:DR than these twoi reverts. i would have never broken WP:3RR but I am sorry if it still counts as WP:EW. But this bureaucratic behavior in GTA articles must stop, the mansion and casino are vital to the plot according to WP:RS and for removing them I merely want a proper NEUTRAL CONSENSUS rather than personal views. Anyway I gave my points, i will leave it to admins to decide. Peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours I am spectaculary unimpressed with counting hours as a way to edit war without crossing 3RR. The rule is against edit warring, 3RR is there as an absolute limit at which edit warring is essentially prima facie, not for watching the clock. Courcelles (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to believe Dilbaggg has been around for so long and has that many edits to their name, and still do not know what 3RR is, who must start a RfC and when to be civil. Perhaps a block of 36 hours is sufficient, but I do believe competence is required and Dilbaggg's not worth the trouble. Thank you, meatpuppet fellow editor LilianaUwU for stepping in. soetermans. 11:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You almost said the quiet part out loud! LilianaUwU 11:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Dilbaggg left a message on my talk page. Since we're already discussing their edits, LilianaUwU, TheDeviantPro, Czello, Rhain and IceWelder, and we're all a group of oligarchs, apparently I'm the "master oligarch", maybe we need to continue this discussion about their hostile attitude. soetermans. 05:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I left the message where I apologized for Wp:EW but also noted you had falsely accused me of Wp:Vandal without WP:AGF when I just added ] you don't want in the article based on personal views also you vilated WP:NPA by saying I am not competent and saying I am not worth it? Who are you to decide that? And edits that do not fit your personal views are not Vandalism, it is against rule to accuse fellow editors of WP:Vandal because their ] edits did not fit your personal views as you did here, how is this vandalism when i merely reverted to the texts taht were removed without any clarification or consensus? The two eidt and the improper vandal warn: , and also note the message above, if someone removes your talk page message you can't undo that, but you were acting dominant and aggressive. Anyway the main objection was I took WP:3RR for granted and did WP:EW and I did apologies that and I mentioned I won't edit Grand Theft Auto articles but their page history will indeed reval a dominant behavior by a few users including you who only wants selective contents absed on your personal views and delete any contyents you want even if they ar eWP:Notable because of personal choice. Thats the GTA project problem and not my problem. Like I said due to this behavior I will stop editing GTA articles for good but their history will reveal this behavior. But my main issue was your false warn of vandalism, I am guilty of Wp:EW and I will never do that again, but your warnj of me vandalising the article just be3cause it did not fit your personal views was improper. Anyway I have nothing more to say here and am done with GTA articles here as long as this behavior persists, I always respect admin juydgement and whatever admins want they can do, I am not even very active won Misplaced Pages anyway, but I have the right to tell you not to false warn me accusing me of vandalism, and do not make statements "he isn't worth it" which I take as personal attack, thats all. I deeply apologies for the WP:EW but I never vandalized the article and I have a right to tell someone not to give false accusation. I am done with this and GTA articles, goodbye and peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:8807:A00:23:5568:8D8F:965C:8528 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked (/64 range) one week)

Page: Fantasy Island (2021 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:8807:A00:23:5568:8D8F:965C:8528 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151756141 by Amaury (talk)"
2. 00:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Guest */"
3. 23:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC) to 22:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 22:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Guest */"
   2. 22:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Refuses to stop and discuss. WP:IDHT. Amaury • 01:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

There was no discussion about anything, only threats and accusations made in a very unprofessional manner. The definitions are directly from Misplaced Pages and has been noted to at least two Editors who would rather puff out their chest and attempt to flex rather than have a civilized conversation. https://en.wikipedia.org/Guest_appearance

2600:8807:A00:23:5568:8D8F:965C:8528 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

IP address choose to ignore MOS:TVCAST and WP:TV. Guest appearance is irrelevant as it is a Misplaced Pages article, not a Misplaced Pages guideline nor policy. Also, keep in mind the article Guest appearance has a tag that says possibly contains original research. — YoungForever 03:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Editor YoungForever continues to ignore common sense and think further than her nose. Editor YoungForever choose to be combative, rather than follow Misplaced Pages guidelines found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and here, https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Civility. 2600:8807:A00:23:5568:8D8F:965C:8528 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless, I was not combative nor uncivil at any point. — YoungForever 05:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Your responses resembled a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum. All because in your opinion, which is completely wrong, recognizable actors should not be listed as "Guest" when they meet every definition of the word except on an outdated policy that you hang your hat on because you apparently lack common sense and have a fragile ego. 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOPA — YoungForever 06:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion". My observation of your fragile ego is merely my interpretation of the cause of your poor attitude. 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI, continuing personal attack is not a good look for you when you have nothing better say. — YoungForever 06:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion". 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You're breaking the spirit of the rule if not the letter of it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOBITING 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

AP isn't biting you, and the obvious insincerity is making a block more likely. — Czello 07:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Number 6 says to move on from it, I'd suggest you and AP take that advice. WP:SANCTIONGAME

2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: more personal attacks and incivility by this user can be found in their talk page, here are some diffs of that: 1, 2, 3, 4 — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SANCTIONGAME 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: For more personal attacks and incivility by the IP address, please see Talk:Fantasy Island (2021 TV series) § Recurring, guest starring, and co-starring. — YoungForever 14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Edits are not vandalism, and not sharing your opinion is not incivility... 68.224.221.10 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked (/64 range) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Pazimzadeh (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: Linus Pauling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:04, 25 April 2023/(Restored revision 1149675123 by Cannolis (talk): WP:MEDRS / profringe edits)‎
2. 21:19, 25 April 2023‎/(Reverted 1 edit by 128.252.154.2 (talk): Sure I did - WP:MEDRS ./ profringe edit)
3. 21:33, 25 April 2023‎/(Reverted 1 edit by Pazimzadeh (talk): Blatantly fails WP:MEDRS requirements)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning that I will report him if he doesn't justify his behavior. Technically, I was responding to his 3RR warning to me. Importantly, he is clearly aware of the 3 revisions rule.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts to specifically clarify why he thinks my edits are profringe, or violate WP:MEDRS

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

Comments:
The potential use of Vitamin C in cancer treatments has been highly controversial in the field ever since Linus Pauling’s advocation of it. Recent studies are finally unraveling the historical discrepancy between clinical studies, which has to do with the delivery method of the compound as well as other considerations. I edited the Linus Pauling article with up-to-date information regarding the potential for high-dose vitamin C to promote an immune response to cancer when combined with immunotherapy, which was not previously discussed in the article.

Specifically, in the introduction section I replaced the sentence:

"Results from most clinical trials suggest that modest vitamin C supplementation alone or with other nutrients offers no benefit in the prevention of cancer.”

with the sentence

"Although there is no consensus in the literature on whether IV high dose vitamin C can affect cancer treatment outcomes, recent pre-clinical mouse studies have revealed a beneficial effect when high dose IV vitamin C is combined with immunotherapy."

and I cited a 2020 review-style article from the U.S. National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-central/blog/2020/yun-cantley-vitamin-c).

In the section “Medical research and vitamin C advocacy" I added:

“Although there is no consensus in the literature on whether IV high dose vitamin C can affect cancer treatment outcomes, recent pre-clinical mouse studies have revealed a beneficial effect when high dose IV vitamin C is combined with immunotherapy.”

And cited primary literature from a high-impact translational journal (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aay8707)

I also added: "The effect was only observed in immunocompetent mice, suggesting that the anti-tumor effect depends in part on a functional immune system, rather than unspecific pro-oxidant activity”.

In keeping with the WP:MEDRS guidelines, I noted that these results are pre-clinical, in mice. The National Cancer Institute summary is from 2020, which is more recent than the previous review (2015) and summarizes the debate and offers supports the limited claims that I have made. Excerpt: Now a growing number of preclinical studies are showing how high-dose vitamin C might benefit cancer patients. Importantly, these preclinical studies provide a clear rationale and potential biomarkers that may help personalize the therapeutic approach and identify patient populations that are likely to respond to high-dose vitamin C therapy.

I attempted to communicate with MrOllie on his talk page, including asking him multiple times for clarification how specifically I have violated the WP:MEDRS.

MrOllie has not responded in good faith to my specific attempts to get clarification, instead repeating over and over that I have violated the guidelines. See talk page and diff statements (e.g. “profringe”, “Blatant violation of WP:MEDRS”, “argues with mainstream medical science.”)

MrOllie reverted my changes within 3 minutes of me making them, asserting that the edits are “profringe.” However, he has not demonstrated comprehension of the edits and source material which I have cited, nor demonstrated the ability or willingness to engage in a frank discussion about this complex and controversial topic. He has threatened to block and report me and accused me of edit warring. I responded in kind. MrOllie has requested me not to post on his talk page again until I have filed a report.

Desired outcomes: 1)- If my edits do not violate WP:MEDRS, please re-instate the edits, or advise me on modifying them to be in full compliance. 2)- If deemed necessary, please add some clarity on WP:MEDRS guidelines, given that several Misplaced Pages articles appear to violate MrOllie’s interpretation of them (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/Interleukin_17#Role_in_psoriasis, see sentences with single references to mouse studies). 3)- Please evaluate the competence of MrOllie to edit articles related to biology, or which require nuanced reading of the source material. Also, the potential need to issue him a warning, to add a timer to his ability to edit articles which relate to biology (giving him time to read the relevant material), or to issue him a topic ban.

I would like to clarify that the articles I have cited are not the only recent, well designed, pre-clinical studies in support of further clinical research for high dose Vitamin C. I am open to amending the article to reflect the other studies on the topic, such as the following: https://www.science.org/content/article/vitamin-c-kills-tumor-cells-hard-treat-mutation

Although it was not one of MrOllie’s claims, I understand that my edits may be more appropriate in a specialized article (https://en.wikipedia.org/Vitamin_C_megadosage or https://en.wikipedia.org/Vitamin_C). However, MrOllie’s talk page comments make it seem like they are inappropriate anywhere on wikipedia. Please clarify.

This is my first time filing a report on Misplaced Pages. Please excuse any syntax or other basic errors that I may have made during this process.Pazimzadeh (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Pazimzadeh blocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:PinocchiosPencilSharpener reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Gig Harbor, Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC) "Sources are local newspaper for covering name of local park changed to recognize original name and the actual tv networks that broadcast programs in or about gig harbor. Please explain how these are not reliable enough sources. Undid revision 1151763685 by LilianaUwU (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC) to 00:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 00:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC) "Provided new reference as SounderBruce did not find the first reference compelling enough"
   2. 00:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC) "Modified media section to only include media references to Gig Harbor that are supported by references to the networks that air/produce the shows."
3. 23:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "Changes made include adding native name for Gig Harbor and corresponding reference (SounderBruce, you continue to delete this without any justification. There is no need to white wash history.) Re-added media section as it was deleted without justification."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The usual stuff, a user constantly attempting to force their version on other people. Their sources are odd, too, such as a HGTV source for a HGTV show (that's primary), oxygen.com (can't really comment on this one, I'm unfamiliar with it) and a little-known local newspaper. LilianaUwU 04:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I should also add that this user has been edit warring at Joel McEntire (a BLP) as well as Interstate 90. SounderBruce 04:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The edit warring isn't limited to Gig Harbor, Washington: there was also edit warring on Joel McEntire, where their diffs were removed for copyvio (thus I can't link them). LilianaUwU 04:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to block me at this point as I have no interest in being part of this community anymore after seeing how the more experienced editors treat new users. The best explanation of why my edits continually being removed was offered in the formal complaint above by LilianaUwU despite me asking for reasons from LilianaUwU and SounderBruce multiple times. As for the local newspaper being little known, well duh, it’s local. Unfortunately, for local history and tidbits, local published sources are often the best and only source. Despite the paper being local, I provided two different articles from it supporting the inclusion of the native name of Gig Harbor on different edits to try to meet LilianaUwU and SounderBruce’s requirements and never received any clarity on why the source was unacceptable. Additionally, with regard to HGTV and Oxygen Network, the media references section was entirely deleted by SounderBruce because he felt it was not notable enough. What gives him the ability to make such determination? When I pushed back, he then claimed the sources were not legitimate enough. In response, I paired down the list to the media references that had original sources and didn’t rely on IMDB.com or other sources he found questionable. Now with original sources references so that I’m not relying on his unfit sources, LilianaUwU deletes it because she doesn’t like the new sources. Whole sections are being stripped from the Gig Harbor page, not it because they are incorrect, but because SounderBruce and LilianaUwU finds it dull or expect every article to be referenced by the New York Times and BBC. I 100% am guilty of warring because I refuse to accept modification by these editors without an actual explanation. Heck, it took multiple revisions of edit wars with SounderBruce for him to stop removing the CORRECT election results of our local representative. PinocchiosPencilSharpener (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:RCB88 reported by User:Ecrusized (Result:Withdrawn )

Page: 2023 Sudan conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RCB88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Repetitive removal material citing a combination Wall Street Journal, CNN and BBC News while calling these sources biased. User keeps removing the said material despite restorations by multiple users. Ecrusized (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That is no more than 3 reverts, and you haven't yet participated in discussion about this in the talk page. Also, the onus is on you to gain consensus for the challenged content. RCB88 (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn As nominator I am withdrawing this notice since the user has stopped the edit warring. Ecrusized (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:174.115.15.87 reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: List of titles and honours of Catherine, Princess of Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.115.15.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. undoing

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
My edits are being reverted despite being well referenced and being logical because Catherine assumes all of her husband's titles including his Scottish titles. She is not just the Duchess of Rothesay, she is Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles and Princess of Scotland. It doesn't have to be explicitly written anywhere because it is assumed by the fact that they are married. This was also on Queen Camilla's page but just removed by the same person complaining about me. This has been an ongoing and annoying issue of people vandalizing Catherine's page, trying to denigrate her entitlement to all of her husband's titles and erase information which to me shows a heavy bias against her by specific editors. This has included removing the jubilee medals that she earned from two of the Queen's jubilees in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.15.87 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Jdhillock reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Indefinite partial block)

Page: Sherrilyn Kenyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151922695 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
2. 01:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151919591 by FlightTime (talk)"
3. 01:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151918896 by FlightTime (talk)"
4. 01:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151918045 by Discospinster (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Sherrilyn Kenyon."
2. 01:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Sherrilyn Kenyon."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) "+ {{Connected contributor}}"

Comments: User is the article subject, declaration is on the talk page of the article. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

and a nother revert - FlightTime (open channel) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely from the Sherrilyn Kenyon article only, due to edit warring plus their asserted conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: )

Page: Charles III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miesianiacal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:07, 25 April 2023 part undoing
2. 07:21, 26 April 2023‎ part undoing
3. 07:30, 26 April 2023‎ undoing
4. 02:42, 27 April 2023‎ removing wikilink to new redirect added here
5. 03:34, 28 April 2023 undoing removal of 'separately' and addition of prime ministers

This all follows on from:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Charles III#Proclamations

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

Comments:

Miesianiacal always stays within the bright-line rule but continues to edit-war performing reverts just outside the 24-hour period. This is also systemic behaviour across multiple articles, such as three reverts on Monarchy of Fiji yesterday and move-warring at Proclamation of accession of Charles III Celia Homeford (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The edits were made within the context of multiple editors working out a mutually acceptable wording; hence, Celia Homeford has found it necessary to cherrypick edits made over a span of days. In the process of trying something or another, everyone undid part of something else, Celia Homeford very much included. 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a; 1b 2b; and 1c. Simultaneously, she targeted me (and me only) with condescendinginstructions and lecturing, continuing even after I requested she not post on my talkpage again. Attempts at civil discussion were made at the article talk page. However, Celia turned things personal for no apparent reason. My gut feeling tells me there's a vendetta afoot here. However, I realize my view could be biased. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

User:112.203.113.91 reported by User:Inomyabcs (Result: Blocked (/24 range) for one week; blocked Andrewbfajardo indefinitely)

Page: Korean People's Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 112.203.113.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 07:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 03:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 02:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Korean People's Army."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC) on Korean People's Army "Undid revision 1151940906 by 112.203.113.91 (talk). Reverted good faith attempt to add unreferenced Pakistan to weapon supplier section of infobox. Please cite Pakistan in the weapon section of the article, provide a citation in the infobox, or open a discussion on the Talk page."

Comments:

User ignoring all attempts at discussion/outreach. Also suspected sockpuppeted with Andrewbfajardo during the 3RR time period. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked IP (/24 range) for one week and Andrewbfajardo indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

User:CrashLandingNew reported by User:Ralx888 (Result: )

Page: Insurgency in Punjab, India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CrashLandingNew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
CrashLandingNew was blocked for a week for edit warring seen here and resumed it again on article Operation Blue Star as seen here , , , and then continued further on article Insurgency in Punjab, India as seen by edit warring diffs above. Ralx888 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

To add, even after providing page number and quote from the citation, CrashLandingNew continued to revert as seen here. None of his revert description or discussion on talk page is healthy but very uncivil, making accusations after accusations. Ralx888 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

See the talk page, it is already under discussion there. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

trying to justify your edit earrings on multiple pages? Kind of too late, isn’t it?Ralx888 (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I and another user were blocked once for a week but I don't see how that is to be held against me in every discussion. After the block, I started a discussion on the page for which we were blocked and since then it has resulted in a healthy discussion with many users.

It's evident from the history of the page under discussion and my own contribution history that I have not engaged in edit war rather I have started healthy discussions on talk pages for contentious edits. The user who has reported me doesn't like the fact that I ask for proper citations and source for adding information on pages and when I remove those changes I am accused of edit warring. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really want to involve myself in any arguments, but I do feel like it may be necessary at this point. In CrashLandingNew's defense, it does appear to be a case of WP:Tag teaming between CS1469 and Ralx88 . As far as I can tell, CrashLandingNew only reverted 3 times, not 4, in the second diff, CLN correctly removed a page which had nothing to do with the topic at hand, that does not count as a revert. Even CS1469 had removed page 92 as it was incorrectly added. S8 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh you are involved now because now it’s clear who is tag teaming here by welcoming your comments and look at the reverts, it’s 4. He was warned and blocked previously and continued the same. Ralx888 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

after being blocked and warned, continue to revert even 3 times is edit warring. Ralx888 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring