Revision as of 23:37, 6 July 2011 editAaron Brenneman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,683 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:22, 19 January 2025 edit undoCFA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,751 editsm - | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}} | |||
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}} | |||
] | <!--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. --> | |||
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude> | |||
__TOC__</noinclude> | |||
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>--> | |||
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. --> | |||
<!-- dummy edit --> | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: |
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) == | ||
{{discussion top}} | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Heathkit H11}} <br /> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Wtshymanski}} | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br /> | |||
Repeated stripping of ] from ] | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|94.187.8.87}} | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ] | |||
This is a common pattern of editing for this editor, which I would categorise (civilly and not, I would say, unfairly) as, "the world is wrong and only I am right" (for clarity, I have a long history with this editor, all much the same). They have some knowledge of the subject, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Despite stable categorisation as "Home computer" long being in place, and despite reversion by two independent editors, their assertion is that this is not a home computer. To quote an edit summary, ''"Didn't hook up to a TV and cassette deck, didn't have ROM BASIC, not much like the other machines in the category."'' | |||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
The sources though differ. This ''was'' an unusual home computer - it cost considerably more than the rest, much more than I could afford. Yet from the contemporary ads archived online , ''"the world's most powerful microcomputer '''comes home'''"'' and ''"the H11 is the best '''home computer''' | |||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' | |||
This is raised at the talk ], but this editor's obstinacy is legendary. ] (]) 07:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
'''"And yet, every time someone lists me at WqA, or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest." -- Wtshymanski''' | |||
This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine ] concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ] (]) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{AN3|p|three days}} by {{u|Randykitty}} ] (]) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Daniel Case}} The editor has with no participation in the Talk page discussion using a ]. Now will you please fulfill my request that they be blocked instead of just temporarily preventing all editors from editing the article? ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I wasn't the one who protected it, as noted. But I'll look into it. ] (]) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::They shan't trouble you again. At least not on that article. ] (]) 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) == | |||
August 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive69#User:Wtshymanski_and_Jump_start_.28vehicle.29 | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Aubrey Plaza}} <br /> | |||
August 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive138#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:Floydian_.28Result:_Stale.29 | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ibeaa}} | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
February 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive149#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:24.177.120.74_.28Result:_page_protected.29 | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
March, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive683#Request_for_admin_attention_re:_proposed_deletion_of_multiple_electronics_components_articles | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
April, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive103#Wtshymanski_and_the_transistor_AfDs | |||
April, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#Wtshymanski_failing_to_work_collaboratively | |||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ; | |||
July, 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Wtshymanski_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 | |||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' | |||
'''"The real travesty here is the total lack of of admin interest. It's one thing that there's an editor <nowiki></nowiki> going round with total disregard for procedure and collective opinion (that's not of itself especially unusual); it's quite another that he's apparently doing it with total impunity. -- RichardOSmith ''' --] (]) 18:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Result:''' 31 hours for 3RR violation at ]. He removed the {{cat|Home computers}} from the article four times in 24 hours. Though I offered him the chance to respond here, Wtshymanski did not take the opportunity. He has continued to edit elsewhere. ] (]) 22:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: Too bad I didn't respond fast enough to suit the admin. Unfortunately, real life concerns always trump Misplaced Pages editing. | |||
:: In the article ] we define it as "... in this list a "home computer" is a factory-assembled mass-marketed consumer product, usually at significantly lower cost than contemporary business computers. It would have an alphabetic keyboard and a multi-line alphanumeric display, the ability to run both games software as well as application software and user-written programs, and some removable mass storage device (such as cassette or floppy disk )." The H11 was not mass-marketed, it was sold in tiny volumes to electronics hobbyists. It was not factory assembled, it required some skill to assemble all the pieces. It didn't have an alphabetic keyboard or multi-line display - you had to buy a separate terminal for that. And it didn't come with any kind of mass storage, you had to buy separate disk drives (or a paper tape reader) for that. It certainly wasn't priced like a 1980's home computer either - by the time you put together all the pieces to make it other than a fancy light-blinker, you'd have spent as much as on a small car. But let's call it a "home computer" to suprise and delight our readers. --] (]) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::This is something that should be on the relevant article's talk page, not the 3RR noticeboard. - ]] 22:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
::: Straight back from your block and once again you're back to "The world is wrong and only I am right". | |||
Single purpose account dedicated to removing relevant and properly sourced content. Their only excuse is: "''guys im gonna be honest idk why im doing this''". ] (]) 17:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: That's not the point. This isn't the factual accuracy board, it's the edit-warring board. The problem here isn't the question of the categorization, it's your approach in pushing one viewpoint over everything else: other editors and the references to the contrary. Despite a block, you still don't seem to realise that. | |||
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 17:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: As to the home computer aspects, then none of your points here have any credibility. This was an early home computer, at a time when they were expensive toys for hobbyists. Home-assembly was common, disk mass storage wasn't, some of your points - the need for the terminal or drives to be supplied in a separate box are simply grasping at straws. As SudoGhost says though, that belongs on the article talk: ] (]) 08:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
*:Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 20:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::: Misplaced Pages is not the whole world, and a tiny fraction of a fraction of the editors is not the whole world. I think that we had a fairly clear-cut description of machines sold as "home computers" and that the H11 doesn't meaningfully fit into that category, as described above. I will be more careful about counting reverts. | |||
:::: The references are to Heath ad copy; in the very next line under the fateful "the world's most powerful microcomputer comes home", we also see Heath appealing to "Computer hobbyists". So, which LINE of the advertisement supports which position? And the reason that the discussion is here is becuase I've been given ultimatims to discuss the subject here; it would make more sense to discuss article changes at article talk pages (and I'll paraphrase my point and append it to the H11 talk page), but I follow my correspondents to the forum they choose. I'm willing to hope for ]. --] (]) 13:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) == | |||
::::: I am discussing the content issue on ] where the discussion belongs, but one aspect concerning Wtshymanski's behavior during his edit war is worth pointing out, especially since he exhibited the behavior here and not on the H11 talk page. The definition that Wtshymanski lists above as justification for his edit warring was written by none other than Wtshymanski! ( ). If a newbie made the error of using one of his own edits as a reliable source, I would chalk it up to ignorance, but Wtshymanski has shown extensive knowledge of ] where doing so suits his purposes. | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Timur}} | |||
:::::Add to this the rather snarky comment "''Too bad I didn't respond fast enough to suit the admin. Unfortunately, real life concerns always trump Misplaced Pages editing.''" Is this accurate? Admin EdJohnston asked Wtshymanski to join the discussion at the 3RR noticeboard and agree to accept consensus as to whether this is a home computer on at 18:44, 3 July 2011 ( ) Wtshymansk talked about the 3RR on his talk page at 20:37, 3 July 2011 ( ) and found time to edit ] on 20:45, 3 July 2011 ( ), ] on 20:51, 3 July 2011 ( ), ] on 20:59, 3 July 2011 ( ), ] on 20:59, 3 July 2011 ( ), and ] on 21:39, 3 July 2011 ( ), at which point he was blocked. Clearly, if he had time to edit seven other pages after EdJohnston asked him to discuss his edit warring here, he had time to respond. Apparently when "real life concerns always trump Misplaced Pages editing." the concerns are rather selective about which edits get "trumped." | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tamerlanon}} | |||
::::: These recent behaviors show, once again, an ongoing pattern of insisting that he is always right, dismissing any evidence or arguments by any other editor, ignoring consensus, and gaming the system wherever possible so as to get his way without having any admin take action. I am getting really tired of dealing with the drama. I just want to improve the engineering-related articles without having to spend all my time dealing with Wtshymanski's disruption. Do I have to go to arbcom and waste many more hours that could be used to improve Misplaced Pages, or will some admin step up to the plate and apply a series of measured short blocks in an attempt to get him to behave? ] (]) 13:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{discussion bottom}} | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) == | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
'''Page:''' {{article|List of military blunders|<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br /> | |||
# {{diff2|1270047251|17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320" | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{user|PM800|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}} | |||
# {{diff2|1270045995|17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?" | |||
# {{diff2|1270040416|16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old." | |||
# {{diff2|1269989123|11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Discussion: He was born in 1320. Give a source?" | |||
# {{diff2|1269974575|09:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
# {{diff2|1269974278|09:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old." | |||
# {{diff|oldid=1269967855|diff=1269969911|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
## {{diff2|1269968118|08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
## {{diff2|1269969911|08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
# {{diff2|1269966433|08:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> | |||
# {{diff2|1269972530|09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]." | |||
# {{diff2|1269987649|10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring." | |||
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
Previous version reverted to: | |||
# {{diff2|1269994020|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping" | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}. ] (]) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
== Edit-warring IP == | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
The IP has been deleting sourced information in the article of ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] since 1st of January and edit-warring on the article of ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] and ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]. It appears that the user wants to have everything "Albanian" removed. | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> | |||
They also removed "Albanian" from the article of ] and replaced it with Serbian. </nowiki>] As I can't notify IPs about ongoing discussions, I will leave it like that. It appears that the user possesses no will for encyclopedic cooperation. ] (]) 19:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: | |||
:{{AN3|m}} ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> | |||
::It's an IP that has no will for encyclopedic cooperation. Since when do we need to open discussions with them? I've seen admins blocking IPs by other users just notifying them on their talkpage. And I did provide diffs. ] (]) 20:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
:::I know it seems bureaucratic, but we have that form for ''a reason''. It makes it much easier to review these reports. It shouldn't take you too much time to re-enter it properly. ] (]) 20:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::And by the way, you ''can'' notify the IP about this; they ''do'' have ]. It seems from the history that although they recently blanked it (which ]), others have used it in the past to notify them of things like ... reports here. ] (]) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{subst:AN3 report|diffs=# {{diff2|1270072743|19:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> | |||
# {{diff|oldid=1270003652|diff=1270044450|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
## {{diff2|1270043159|17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] ([[User talk Sorry, but they don't stand up historically.To claim that stout is a strong version of mild ale is just embarrassing!" | |||
## {{diff2|1270044450|17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
# {{diff2|1270000487|12:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Irrelevant unless it's properly sourced" | |||
# {{diff|oldid=1263595504|diff=1269993652|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
## {{diff2|1269993388|11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Stout has never been a type of ale, weak sourcing too." | |||
## {{diff2|1269993652|11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Oatmeal stout */Not notable"|warnings=|resolves= | |||
# {{diff2|1270073178|19:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Haldraper}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."|pagename=Stout|orig=|comment=See also the reverts at ]. Haldraper has crossed the 3RR in both cases. ]. ] 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)|uid=Haldraper}} | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) == | |||
This user has gone up to "their third revert" but they've been blocked in the past for 3RR and I really am tired of edit warring, I have no interest in doing another revert to see if they revert me again with still no discussion. I'd rather a third party step in at this point than keep this nonsense up. I am trying to remove challenged content from the article (under ]), as I explain in my edit summaries... PM800 is just using the default "undo" message to revert me, with no explanation ever given. | |||
I should point out this user did a similar thing to me on several occasions last year, not giving an explanation and really not making a lot of sense with what edits of mine they reverted, for example: , . As far as I can recall they've never explained any of these reverts. I have tried to talk to them on their talk page and in edit summaries both then and now, before bringing this issue here. --] (]) 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Just to clarify, I'm not looking to get PM800 blocked. I just want them to stop reverting me for no stated reason... I am not vandalizing the article and I shouldn't be treated like I am. If PM800 wants that line in the article they need to defend it. --] (]) 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|b|1 week}} -''']'''''<sup><small>]</small></sup>'' 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks|Astius}}, {{pagelinks|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks|Angelina of Serbia}} <br /> | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|187.36.171.230}} | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' Christianity in Kosovo: , Astius: , John Koukouzelis: | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|ETA}} <br /> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Piculo}} | |||
'''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. --> | |||
# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] | |||
# </nowiki>] | |||
Previous version reverted to: | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' - | |||
<!-- 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 of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' -, but | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> | |||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and | |||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' | |||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> | |||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
<u>Comments:</u>For the last month, Piculo has become a ], intent on adding their own POV into the ETA article without references or by adding references which in no way support the POV being added. Firstly they continually added terrorist to the article, against a consensus in the article stretching back to 2004 at least, now they are adding other commentary, despite being advised on talk and on their user page that they do not have consensus for that and that they should follow ] and ]. Piculo also broke ] on the 28th June. On that occasion, I gave them a pass in the hope that they would discuss changes and seek consensus. <br /> | |||
It seems like the user indeed adds suitable content for content that relates to Serbia. Therefore, a topic ban for Kosovo and Albania would be convenient. I don't know if that's possible here, though. ] (]) 23:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> | |||
*{{AN3|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
Comments by Piculo: | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}} | |||
I did respect the NPOV, there is not any opinion about the human rights. I did extend the page with verifiable information adding two references. | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}} | |||
* Last modification | |||
--] (]) 11:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ''']'''''<sup><small>]</small></sup>'' 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 72h) == | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br /> | |||
# {{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.)" | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Soundwaweserb}} | |||
# {{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:''' | |||
<!-- 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|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt" | |||
# {{diff2|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add" | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> | |||
Previous version reverted to: | |||
All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
: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) | |||
== Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week) == | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> | |||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|SpaDeX}} <br /> | |||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garundam}} | |||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269842031''' | |||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> | |||
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269957055 | |||
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269973309 | |||
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269998618 | |||
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1270115743 | |||
The fifth revert is a week after the fourth (which were all in the same day). ] ] 12:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}} -''']'''''<sup><small>]</small></sup>'' 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned under ARBPIA) == | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Palestine}} <br /> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kazvorpal}} | |||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
Previous version reverted to: | |||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' | |||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: | |||
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Garudam&diff=prev&oldid=1270190529 | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A | |||
Looks like nationalistic indians refusing to compromise and using wiki rules to prevent newcomers making good faith changes | |||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> | |||
] (]) 10:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:You have not linked to efforts to make a compromise or even warned other editors that they might be edit warring. "Nationalistic Indians" is a very serious thing to say and I suggest that you focus on the content and less about the nationality of the editors involved. ] (]) 10:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
], like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a ] restriction. For more information, see ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Please see . Looks like a troll IP to me, making personal attacks. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|nb|1 week}} ] (]) 15:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
* Shabazz is simply lawyering, here: Someone deleted the line, giving actual, valid reasons: Lack of references, and a word he felt PoV. I added two references, and replaced the word, with a more NPoV one. Then Shabazz comes along and reverts it with a completely unrelated objection, that it was supposedly fringe. I restored it, pointing out that nobody disputes the fact in question. Because the other reversion was a completely unrelated objection, and was fixed, this is a single reversion. If not, then anyone could censor any idea he did not like, simply by reverting with a different objection the second time, valid or no. --] (]) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Battle of Jamrud}} | |||
::Maybe you should brush up on the meaning of "revert": "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Noorullah21}} | |||
:::Again, I only undid your work, whether in whole or part, one time. It would be ridiculous for this to apply to completely unrelated objections by completely unrelated users. Surely you're not claiming to be Frederico1234...--] (]) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
{{nao}} It occurs to me, just passing by this out of chance, that the first time the information was removed, it should perhaps have been flagged with the relevant notices, such as {{tl|cn}}, and was seemingly only outright removed due to the sensitive nature of these pages. As such, good-faith remedying of a noted problem doesn't strike me as being as harsh as simply reverting a change, and User:Kazvorpal's first "revert" has fallen prey to misfortune—had the previous editor merely tagged the content with a template for its issues, there'd be no confusion over the definition of a revert here. Perhaps that should be considered in the outcome. ] ] 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I disagree. The article is covered by ]. Edits like i.e. the first time the information was removed, are consistent with the sanctions. Editors who want to edit in a topic area covered by the sanctions shouldn't be surprised to see material deleted when they don't cite a reliable source for "for contentious or disputed assertions". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 20:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Oh, I'm not denying that, it's abundantly clear that that is why the removal was so sudden. My point is simply that there's an odd situation created wherein the page is governed in such a way as to create more opportunities for edits which would be considered reverts whilst simultaneously allowing for less. The very nature of why the page is given to the 1RR standard also encourages swift removal instead of slower vetting of content, so I (personally) would be ''very very slightly'' more lenient concerning edits like the first diff wherein content removed for a stated reason is reinstated with said reason resolved—had it simply just be reinstated as it stood before, obviously it would be a clear violation. ] ] 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, I suppose the first diff isn't really edit warring but I guess what he probably should have done per ] was start a discussion to hammer the content out on the talk page. I probably violate the 1RR rule all over the place without even noticing so I probably shouldn't be commenting... <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::: I agree that, had Frederic objected again, or Shabazz objected about the same thing Frederic had, discussion would have been the obvious next step, especially considering the extreme nature of the edit restrictions for "all things concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (of which I was unaware, but I probably would have moved to discussion if the same issue had remained unresolved, anyway), but Shabazz' objection was obviously a completely unrelated one. If someone adds a paragraph, and ten people revert it for ten different reasons -- truly different, each dealing with a different sentence and a completely different concept -- surely the original editor shouldn't have to treat them as all part of the same issue. If one guy wants references, another guy wants different grammar, another doesn't like a specific word, et cetera, it's not the original editor's fault if they keep reverting the whole thing. --] (]) 21:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Result:''' Warned. The repeated additions of similar material constitute a violation of ]. I am warning Kazvorpal of the discretionary sanctions under ] and logging a notice in the case. The editor has made no effort to get support on the article talk page for the material that he wants to add. The ] material is not widely known but it is probably not ]. It is still up to the consensus of editors whether the thesis of Edwin Black's book is important enough to include in the the ] article. Any further reverts before consensus is found may lead to a block. ] (]) 00:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 month) == | |||
# {{diff2|1270170387|07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270112351 by ] (]): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.." | |||
# {{diff2|1270112351|00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270108346 by ] (]): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk page now to be more clear." | |||
# {{diff2|1270108346|23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements. | |||
Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving | |||
the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed | |||
the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic | |||
victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars." | |||
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Boleto}} <br /> | |||
# {{diff2|1270110872|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section" | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Francisco luz}} | |||
# {{diff2|1270113286|00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]." | |||
# {{diff2|1270205537|12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]." | |||
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> | |||
# {{diff2|1269985195|10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ new section" | |||
# {{diff2|1270115828|00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply" | |||
# {{diff2|1270117437|00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply" | |||
# {{diff2|1270123153|01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply" | |||
# {{diff2|1270124950|01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply" | |||
# {{diff2|1270128846|01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply" | |||
# {{diff2|1270130305|02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply" | |||
# {{diff2|1270131478|02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply" | |||
# {{diff2|1270133699|02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply" | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> | |||
Previous version reverted to: Cannot provide diff, has been revdel'd due to copyvio issues | |||
This is not the first time they are edit warring and breaking 3RR, they were previously warned by an admin . There seems to be a habit of them continuously misinterpreting the sources and pushing certain PoVs. They have opted for 3O by themselves but disagreed with the opinion given. ] 12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
* 1st revert: Revdel'd (Editing as IP ]) | |||
* 2nd revert: Edit at 5:24 | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 5th revert: | |||
:Im not that involved(haven’t reverted anybody, just made a comment on the talk page). As a word of advice because so many people seem to forget this fact, when your adding disputed content, ONUS is on you to attain consensus. Which hasn’t happened here. | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
:“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> | |||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: | |||
:It seems that you yourself were also edit warring, except your the one who’s adding disputed content so per ONUS, you were never supposed to revert him to begin with. You need to wait until talk page discussions conclude and gain consensus. ] (]) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> | |||
::A. The instance you pointed out was an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..) | |||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ] has a discussion about this, as well as the user's ] and at ]. | |||
::B. When the individual hasn't concluded their ], you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind you ] is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until a ] can be made. The burden of proof is on you for ] (you also kept readding a non ] source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed out ] as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory. ] (]) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I also told said where per ], it's per them to seek Consensus. ] (]) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I reverted my edit as of now per the edit summary. (the last edit prior to that is the person working on our ]. ] (]) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::This seems like ], but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one quoting: {{tq|I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans"}} which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes. ] 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? the ] is being discussed. | |||
::::You've completely ignored this. | |||
:::: | |||
:::: | |||
:::: | |||
:::: | |||
::::Scroll down! (on the talk page). ] (]) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did. | |||
:::::@] has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless. ] (]) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::'''Both of us did''' No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through ], don't confuse it with ]. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of ]. ] 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::What? | |||
:::::::"No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former. | |||
:::::::"Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page. | |||
:::::::'''"The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT."''' - Are you insinuating @] is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about. | |||
:::::::A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.) | |||
:::::::B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?) | |||
:::::::C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations? | |||
:::::::I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page? '''"The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."''' | |||
:::::::Flinging around accusations of Meatpuppetry clearly breaches ]. ] (]) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::You also did revert it three times.. Shown here: | |||
:::::::: (First time) | |||
:::::::: (Second time) | |||
:::::::: (Third Time) ] (]) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. ] 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?) | |||
::::::::::I didn't revert four times to break 3RR. Where are the diffs of me reverting you four times? ] (]) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) == | |||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> | |||
User has been inserting text that is a copyright violation of , (example "''The individual or corporate entity that issues the boleto and whose account will be credited.''" appears in both the article and the source), and continues to insert the material despite being warned in ] ] ]. Regardless of the copyright issues, ] is in violation of ]. As for my edits, removal of copyright violations is exempt from ]. | |||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> | |||
*'''Result:''' 1 month. Continued to restore copyrighted material after a final warning. He was blocked a week for the same thing on the same article in mid-June. ] (]) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|StopAntisemitism}} <br /> | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: No Violation) == | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4}} | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Helena Christensen}} <br /> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Lexein}} | |||
'''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. --> | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
Previous version reverted to: | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
<!-- 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 of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> | |||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: | |||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> | |||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' | |||
<u>Comments:</u> This is a strikingly lame dispute, and rather than trying to force a 3RR violation I'll bring it here directly. ] is quite determined to include some remarkably silly content about ] being a "cheese addict" in her bio, a few months back edit warred against guideline if not policy to emphasize the claim in the article lede, and now insists that the material must remain in the article even though no one bu he defends it and at least two editors support its removal. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and while discussion about subject's taste in cheese might be appropriate in an article about a chef or a food critic, it's not generally encyclopedic with regard to celebrities (or even noncelebrities). Lexein has pretty much announced his intention to edit war on this and his various groundless accusations of canvassing and other sorts of bad faith against both editors who recently removed this silliness are completely inappropriate, even given the ]ness of the substantive dispute. ] (]) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC) <br /> | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> | |||
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|nve}} Can't block without a 3RR violation of some sort. Sorry, ''']'''''<sup><small>]</small></sup>'' 03:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
**Not to put too fine a point on it, but: ''Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached.'' Isn't the fact that the editor rejects the majority sentiment and declares "I won't be silent, or compliant, in the face of deletion" enough to get some scrutiny after he repeatedly adds back such disputed content without any valid backing from policy or guideline? ] (]) 04:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Next Danish general election }} <br /> | |||
::* Reality check: for all concerned, my statement, "I won't be silent, or compliant, in the face of deletion of sourced content" simply meant that I will be ], and won't simply let deletions of reliably sourced content go by without on-policy response by me. As an editor in good standing, my edit history shows that I'm consistently on-policy to the best of my ability and knowledge (see even ). There was, and is, ''no declared intention of any kind to edit war.'' | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Thomediter}} | |||
::* Intentions: I look forward to the opinions of several ''additional'' editors about the cheese paragraph. Of course, as the number of editors in discussion increases, it gets easier for me to both participate in and agree with ultimate consensus. I will abide by the larger consensus of an RfC. If an accommodation can be reached before the RfC, so much the better. | |||
::--] (]) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
Editor was and that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning. | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == | |||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tourism in Israel}} <br /> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|WalkerHerbertBush}} | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
*], I am going to revert your last (fourth) revert; you are indeed edit warring and you're not giving any reasons for your edits, never mind for your ongoing reverts. If you revert one more time you will be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Seek the talk page. ] (]) 17:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) == | |||
Previous version reverted to: | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br /> | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}} | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
There is a 1/rr in the topic area. There is a warning at the top of the page when editing so the editor has no excuse. I ignored the 1/rr violation and gave him a heads up but he decided to revert again. | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
I am requesting notification of ARBPIA and an admin giving him suggestions that are friendlier than I am willing to give. I will be reverting with a talk page discussion being opened but it is really not necessary since the edit looks to only be to make a point and he has already been willing to remove sourced info from another article. Just to be clear: I am not assuming good faith with this new editor. | |||
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight | |||
# – same | |||
# – same | |||
# – same | |||
# – same, now with PA | |||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] | |||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> | |||
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' | |||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> | |||
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ''']'''''<sup><small>]</small></sup>'' 03:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> | |||
== ] reported by ] ] (Result: 1 week) == | |||
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:''' {{pagelinks|Glücksgas Stadium}} | |||
: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) | |||
::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) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Blusts}} | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Probability and statistics}} | |||
'''Time reported:''' 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Logoshimpo}} | |||
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 436750737 by ] (])")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "/* 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup */ update")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "File:Womens' World Cup Dresden 2011 USA vs North Korea Stadium 3.jpg")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "update")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 437957335 by ] (])")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "/* 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup */ ;")</small> | |||
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 437960507 by ] (])")</small> | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
* Diffs of warning: and | |||
User is repeatedly adding unhelpful and unwanted information to Glücksgas Stadium, has been asked several times to stop and never responded in any way, and has been blocked once already for this just a couple of days ago | |||
—] ] 00:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|b|1 week}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , . | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours) == | |||
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying}} <br /> | |||
# | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ring Cinema}} | |||
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> | |||
# {{diff2|1270081668|20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply" | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> | |||
Previous version reverted to: | |||
The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . ] (]) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
Continuation of old edit war: | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Nachos}} | |||
<!-- 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 --> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Rauzoi}} | |||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> | |||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: | |||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' | |||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> | |||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' | |||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> | |||
# {{diff2|1270462611|17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754 vandalized by Crasias" | |||
# {{diff|oldid=1270457231|diff=1270459938|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
## {{diff2|1270459303|17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])" | |||
## {{diff2|1270459938|17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
# {{diff2|1270456533|16:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754" | |||
# {{diff|oldid=1270368949|diff=1270375910|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
## {{diff2|1270375677|06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754" | |||
## {{diff2|1270375910|06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
# {{diff|oldid=1270037609|diff=1270355298|label=Consecutive edits made from 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
## {{diff2|1270354944|04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
## {{diff2|1270355115|04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
## {{diff2|1270355298|04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Variations */" | |||
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' | |||
This user was recently blocked for 24h for edit warring , doing the exact same revert 5 times in 24h (and several times before that). He has now done the same revert twice today already, continues to claim that his position is correct because the votes are 4-3 in his favor, even though being told about ], and even though the discussion ended up with nobody but him defending his position. --] (]) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
# {{diff2|1270460344|17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "" | |||
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' | |||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> | |||
OpenFuture and two other editors are in the minority on this issue. There was a long discussion about making the change they requested and they failed to get a consensus. I have asked for their explanation for violating consensus policies and they continue to claim they have a consensus. In fact, four editors have taken the contrary position to theirs, so they are violating policy on proceeding according to consensus. I have requested protection for the page and I hope that will prevent any further vandalism from this group. --] (]) 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> | |||
:Ring Cinema was blocked by SarekOfVulcan for 72 hours. ] ] 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Frequently removing and replacing sourced content that identifies Nachos as "Tex-Mex" rather than "Mexican" ] (]) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== IP-hopping editor on ], reported by ] (Result:Page Protected) == | |||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tin Pei Ling}} <br /> | |||
'''Users being reported:''' {{userlinks|202.156.13.233}}, {{userlinks|202.156.13.11}}, {{userlinks|218.186.16.250}} | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> | |||
Previous version reverted to: | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
* 1st revert: | |||
* 2nd revert: | |||
* 3rd revert: | |||
* 4th revert: | |||
* 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. --> | |||
I am unable to warn the user explicitly because of the use of IP-hopping, but I have repeatedly pleaded with the user to merge in his or her desired changes; however the user insists on reverting ''everything'', including constructive bot fixes. I have invited the user to use different forms of consensus-building, and I have offered to voluntarily revert myself on certain sections if the editor would identify the disputed sections. However, the editor rejects ''everything'' even though I have tried different ways of phrasing, and different sources, and tried making concessions and compromises. | |||
I am an involved administrator seeking advice from another administrator on an appropriate course of action. In the past, previous people have advised to rangeblock the editor, but the editor merely skips to a different IP. I have decided to further refrain from using the tools and thus need help. I am frustrated from the lack of attention on this matter. | |||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> | |||
The user is an IP-jumper and has a past history on various noticeboards. The most recent is ], also see discussion on a 3rd party ]. In the past, this user has strong evidence of being an astroturfing editor; but the evidence is more complex. | |||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> | |||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> | |||
] (]) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:] '''Malformed''' – The report is formatted in a way that is unreadable by the automated processing system. Please ensure the report header and body follow the guidelines. Refer to the ] for more information. ~ ] <small>(])</small> 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: Um, the situation is kind of complex, I can't use the traditional format. ] (]) 19:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
*{{AN3|p}} For future reference, this kind of report belongs at ]. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == | |||
'''Page:''' {{List_of_Jiggy_McCue_books|<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br /> | |||
'''User being reported:''' {{Δ|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}} | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> | |||
Previous version reverted to: | |||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> | |||
* (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 00:49, 5 July 2011 | |||
* (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 17:44, 5 July 2011 | |||
* (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 14:58, 6 July 2011 | |||
* (remove non-free content overuse) Revision as of 15:05, 6 July 2011 | |||
* (remove non-free content overuse) | |||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | |||
No diffs, linking to restrictions instead: ] | |||
], linked from the edit sumaries, is an essay. ] is quite clear in that "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that '''unquestionably''' violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)," . Per ] "It is '''inadvisable''' to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section," . | |||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
Latest revision as of 21:22, 19 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) | |||||||||
1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 |
1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
Other links | |||||||||
User:94.187.8.87 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)
Page: Fadlo R. Khuri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.187.8.87 (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: User talk:94.187.8.87
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine WP:BLP concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Page protected for a period of three days by Randykitty Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: The editor has immediately resumed edit warring with no participation in the Talk page discussion using a different IP address. Now will you please fulfill my request that they be blocked instead of just temporarily preventing all editors from editing the article? ElKevbo (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't the one who protected it, as noted. But I'll look into it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- They shan't trouble you again. At least not on that article. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: The editor has immediately resumed edit warring with no participation in the Talk page discussion using a different IP address. Now will you please fulfill my request that they be blocked instead of just temporarily preventing all editors from editing the article? ElKevbo (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Ibeaa reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: Aubrey Plaza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ibeaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Soft warning; Second warning
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Single purpose account dedicated to removing relevant and properly sourced content. Their only excuse is: "guys im gonna be honest idk why im doing this". Sundayclose (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Tamerlanon reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: Timur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tamerlanon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
- 17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?"
- 16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
- 11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Discussion: He was born in 1320. Give a source?"
- 09:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
- 09:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
- Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 08:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Timur."
- 10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Birthdate */ ping"
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Edit-warring IP
The IP 187.36.171.230 has been deleting sourced information in the article of Christianity in Kosovo since 1st of January and edit-warring on the article of Astius and John Koukouzelis . It appears that the user wants to have everything "Albanian" removed. They also removed "Albanian" from the article of Angelina of Serbia and replaced it with Serbian. As I can't notify IPs about ongoing discussions, I will leave it like that. It appears that the user possesses no will for encyclopedic cooperation. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's an IP that has no will for encyclopedic cooperation. Since when do we need to open discussions with them? I've seen admins blocking IPs by other users just notifying them on their talkpage. And I did provide diffs. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know it seems bureaucratic, but we have that form for a reason. It makes it much easier to review these reports. It shouldn't take you too much time to re-enter it properly. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- And by the way, you can notify the IP about this; they do have a talk page. It seems from the history that although they recently blanked it (which they're allowed to do), others have used it in the past to notify them of things like ... reports here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know it seems bureaucratic, but we have that form for a reason. It makes it much easier to review these reports. It shouldn't take you too much time to re-enter it properly. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's an IP that has no will for encyclopedic cooperation. Since when do we need to open discussions with them? I've seen admins blocking IPs by other users just notifying them on their talkpage. And I did provide diffs. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{subst:AN3 report|diffs=# 19:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270003652 by Terrainman ([[User talk Sorry, but they don't stand up historically.To claim that stout is a strong version of mild ale is just embarrassing!"
- 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
- 12:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269997191 by Terrainman (talk) Irrelevant unless it's properly sourced"
- Consecutive edits made from 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Stout has never been a type of ale, weak sourcing too."
- 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Oatmeal stout */Not notable"|warnings=|resolves=
- 19:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Haldraper "Warning: Edit warring on Porter (beer)."|pagename=Stout|orig=|comment=See also the reverts at Porter (beer). Haldraper has crossed the 3RR in both cases. soetermans. 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)|uid=Haldraper}}
User:187.36.171.230 reported by User:AlexBachmann (Result: Blocked)
Page: Christianity in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Astius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), John Koukouzelis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Angelina of Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.36.171.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Christianity in Kosovo: , Astius: , John Koukouzelis:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -, but has been warned in the past
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
It seems like the user indeed adds suitable content for content that relates to Serbia. Therefore, a topic ban for Kosovo and Albania would be convenient. I don't know if that's possible here, though. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Xuangzadoo reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: )
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)
Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week)
Page: SpaDeX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Garundam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269842031
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269957055
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269973309
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269998618
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1270115743
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: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Garudam&diff=prev&oldid=1270190529
Comments:
Looks like nationalistic indians refusing to compromise and using wiki rules to prevent newcomers making good faith changes 185.40.61.47 (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- You have not linked to efforts to make a compromise or even warned other editors that they might be edit warring. "Nationalistic Indians" is a very serious thing to say and I suggest that you focus on the content and less about the nationality of the editors involved. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please see this. Looks like a troll IP to me, making personal attacks. Garuda 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week 331dot (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Noorullah21 reported by User:HerakliosJulianus (Result: )
Page: Battle of Jamrud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noorullah21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270112351 by Noorullah21 (talk): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
- 00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270108346 by Noorullah21 (talk): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk page now to be more clear."
- 23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements.
Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"
- 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."
- 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
- 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
- 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
- 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
- 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
- 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
- 02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
- 02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
- 02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
Comments:
This is not the first time they are edit warring and breaking 3RR, they were previously warned by an admin . There seems to be a habit of them continuously misinterpreting the sources and pushing certain PoVs. They have opted for 3O by themselves but disagreed with the opinion given. Indo-Greek 12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im not that involved(haven’t reverted anybody, just made a comment on the talk page). As a word of advice because so many people seem to forget this fact, when your adding disputed content, ONUS is on you to attain consensus. Which hasn’t happened here.
- “The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”
- It seems that you yourself were also edit warring, except your the one who’s adding disputed content so per ONUS, you were never supposed to revert him to begin with. You need to wait until talk page discussions conclude and gain consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- A. The instance you pointed out was an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..)
- B. When the individual hasn't concluded their WP:3O, you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind you WP:3O is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until a Consensus can be made. The burden of proof is on you for WP:ONUS (you also kept readding a non WP:RS source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed out WP:3O as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory. Noorullah (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also told said where per WP:ONUS, it's per them to seek Consensus. Noorullah (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted my edit as of now per the edit summary. (the last edit prior to that is the person working on our WP:3PO. Noorullah (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like WP:TAGTEAM, but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one quoting:
I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans"
which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes. Indo-Greek 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? the WP:3O is being discussed.
- You've completely ignored this.
- Scroll down! (on the talk page). Noorullah (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did.
- @Someguywhosbored has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless. Noorullah (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both of us did No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR, don't confuse it with WP:4RR. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT. Indo-Greek 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What?
- "No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former.
- "Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page.
- "The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT." - Are you insinuating @Someguywhosbored is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about.
- A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.)
- B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?)
- C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?
- I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page? "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."
- Flinging around accusations of Meatpuppetry clearly breaches Civility. Noorullah (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- You also did revert it three times.. Shown here:
- (First time)
- (Second time)
- (Third Time) Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. Indo-Greek 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?)
- I didn't revert four times to break 3RR. Where are the diffs of me reverting you four times? Noorullah (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. Indo-Greek 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Both of us did No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR, don't confuse it with WP:4RR. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT. Indo-Greek 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also told said where per WP:ONUS, it's per them to seek Consensus. Noorullah (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
User:2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4 reported by User:CipherRephic (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: StopAntisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Thomediter reported by User:Number 57 (Result: )
Page: Next Danish general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thomediter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Editor was asked to respect BRD and warned that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
- User:Thomediter, I am going to revert your last (fourth) revert; you are indeed edit warring and you're not giving any reasons for your edits, never mind for your ongoing reverts. If you revert one more time you will be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Seek the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 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)
- Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Logoshimpo reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: )
Page: Probability and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Logoshimpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , .
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"
Comments: The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . JBL (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Rauzoi reported by User:Crasias (Result: )
Page: Nachos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rauzoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754 vandalized by Crasias"
- Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270457231 by Crasias (talk)"
- 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
- 16:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
- Consecutive edits made from 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
- 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
- 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Variations */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Frequently removing and replacing sourced content that identifies Nachos as "Tex-Mex" rather than "Mexican" Crasias (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: