Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:35, 24 December 2009 editWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →User:Thegoodlocust reported by User:Viriditas (Result: ): +1 negative← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:04, 19 January 2025 edit undoDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,519 edits →User:Rauzoi reported by User:Crasias (Result: ): Both editors blocked (for varying terms) and page ECP'ed. 
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 = 118 |counter = 491
|algo = old(72h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude> }}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
{{Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}
__TOC__
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: Protected) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|94.187.8.87}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
#
{{Article|Brisbane Airport}}. {{3RRV|M i k e y 86}}: Time reported: 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
* Revert comparison ("compare"): ().


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
# () <small>(edit summary: "I rearranged the page to make it more suitable, as the other layout did not flow. this is more aesthetically pleasing")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "/* Airlines and destinations */ Removed Destination picture it is not current as per the destinations create a new picture with the correct destinations and update it when new destinations come online")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "undo edit, we all know what the point of an airport is but the layout of the page is not flowing and makes for an un pleasant read! Please leave it. consult on talk page if you dont like the change")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "Please stop changing the layout, discuss on talk page before changing! The layout you have constructed is unpleasing to read it lacks structure!!")</small>
# () <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332440016 by ] (])Please discuss with me before changing!")</small>


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* Diff of warning:
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) ==
:''Comment:'' This editor refuses to take the problem to the talk page and the latest revert by the editor clearly shows they have an ] of the article. ] (]) 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Aubrey Plaza}} <br />
—] (]) 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ibeaa}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::I especially like the last comment from user M i k e y 86: "please discuss with me before changing"! And to add my two bits, I have had to ask this user to get familiar with the aviation project guidelines - which they insist on dismissing, preferring to do what they feel like and say things like "Unfortunately readers will not know about this "project" and standards of "pleasantness" and "prettiness" should be up held. Reader want something that is well structed, if it isnt it makes for an unpleasant reading experience, in which the "Project" should adopt these important standards". And that's just one of many examples. ] (]) 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Not a formal 3RR, but this editor does seem to have his own special preference for how an airport article should look. I don't notice him waiting to find consensus, and I see that he restores his preference numerous times after it's reverted by others. ] (]) 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
*{{AN3|pe}} ] <small> ]]'''</small> 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
::I disagree with the comment that this is primarily a content dispute. The content guidelines at ] are very clear on the layout and hierarchy of airport articles. ] (]) 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Agree with Jasepl on this. Jasepl clearly pointed at the guidelines set by the Airports project however the editor didn't take the advice and continued to push their view and lay-out, hardly a content dispute. ] (]) 04:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
*I'm essentially now gone for a week, but get together your facts and consensus at make a request at ]. Cheers, ] <small> ]]'''</small> 16:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: 31h) ==
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#


*] violation on
{{Article|Blockland}}. {{3RRV|Kalphiter}}: Time reported: 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ;
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332707805 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332708457 by ] (]) Deleting reference for an invalid reason")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332710270 by ] (]) Jealousy is not tolerated")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332711552 by ] (]) I never added my own website")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332713222 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332714875 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332787863 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332789139 by ] (])")</small>


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
The user is adding a reference with a link to his site.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
—] (]) 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 17:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 20:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 31h) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==


'''Page:''' {{la|Christ myth theory}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Timur}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BruceGrubb}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tamerlanon}}
<!-- 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: '''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. -->
# {{diff2|1270047251|17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1270045995|17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?"
* 2nd revert: (as IP user 67.42.65.214)
# {{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."
* 3rd revert:
# {{diff2|1269989123|11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Discussion: He was born in 1320. Give a source?"
* 4th revert:
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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 -->
# {{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:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1269994020|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Bruce has been blocked for 3rr before: ]. Current warning:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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 -->
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}. ] (]) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


== Edit-warring IP ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


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.
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
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)
] (]) 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
:The 2007 edit-warring case seems old, but the behavior of BruceGrubb in the current dispute is worrisome. It is plausible that he may be using ] to revert in favor of his point of view. (How likely is it that both the IP and BruceGrubb would support including Remsburg's work in the article?) I left a message on BruceGrubb's Talk page and asked him to respond here. BruceGrubb appears to be in a minority on the talk page, since no-one else supports including Remsburg, but he reverts anyway. A conciliatory response from him might be enough to avoid admin action. ] (]) 23:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
::Please compare ] and ]. Both have edited ], ], ], ], and ]--it's pretty unlikely that this is coincidence. I linked to the edit warring case from 2007 simply to show that BruceGrubb is aware of the 3RR rule. ] (]) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:'''Result''' - 31 hours, edit-warring to force Remsburg's theories into the article with no support from others, and use of a sock in an edit war. Block may be lifted early if the user will commit to an acceptable style of dispute resolution regarding this article and related ones. If Bruce will agree to an RfC about Remsburg I trust the other editors will be ready to join that discussion. ] (]) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


:{{AN3|m}} ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==
::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)
:::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)}} ""
'''Page:''' {{article|Siemens}} <br />
# {{diff|oldid=1270003652|diff=1270044450|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Radical-Dreamer}}
## {{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) ==
<!-- 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:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks|Astius}}, {{pagelinks|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks|Angelina of Serbia}} <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|187.36.171.230}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
All reverts within the last few hours.


'''Previous version reverted to:''' Christianity in Kosovo: , Astius: , John Koukouzelis:
<!-- 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 -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
# </nowiki>]


<!-- 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 />


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' -
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
I've had no prior involvement in this dispute before .--] (]) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' -, but
::Comment - relatively new user - but with possible problems relating to POV issues (see ]) I have explained to this editor the various issues involved (see link), but they are not really taking that much notice. There is a wider POV problem beyond breaking the 3RR which is explained on the incidents page. The last edit shows them ignoring other editors, yet clearly aware of the problem. ] (]) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*{{AN3|b|24 hours by ]}}--] (]) 21:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==


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)
'''Page:''' {{article|Bulgarisation}} <br />
*{{AN3|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kostja}}


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}}


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1270068423|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
# {{diff2|1270041541|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


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


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments:User displays hostile and combative attitude, as evidenced by this message he left on my talkpage. Same goes at ] . Note that it was ''I'' who started the discussion. Prior to that, the user contented themselves with sterile reverts (using his rollback tool to do so, no less). Although he participates in the discussion, he shows no intent to stop edit-warring. A block is warranted, as is a suspension of his rollback rights. --] (]) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
:Only 107 can be regarded as a revert as the other two edits didn't return to my previous version.
:I don't understand what is meant by hostile and combative. I was just arguing against the idea that I was POV pushing.
:I've defended my recent edits on the talk page and tried to accomodate the opinion of the other editors. It can hardky be said that I intend to continue edit warring.
:] (]) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
::From ]: "''A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or '''in part'''.''" 106, 107 are in whole, 108, 109 are in part. And you do show you have every intention to continue edit-warring, because you reverted even after you joined the discussion. --] (]) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
:::I didn't revert an action in part but added additional information.
:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I didn't revert after joining as I've explained above.
:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::] (]) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


== Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week) ==
::::The only "additional" information you "added" was to replace "Most" with "Part". Hardly a substantial change. The spirit of the last two diffs is identical to your first two reverts, and as such, is a rather straightforward breach of 3RR. --] (]) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
*'''Result''' - Article protected 3 days. I don't see a clear violation of ] by Kostja, but he did misuse rollback in a content dispute. This happened at 11:31 and 13:44 on 20 December, so his rollback is suspended. He may apply at ] to have it restored after a reasonable time. All parties are warned against continuing to revert the language about previous Bulgarian ownership of the territory invaded in 1941, without first getting a consensus on the talk page as to what to say. Blocks are possible if that dispute continues after protection expires. An explanation of ] is hopefully not needed here. ] (]) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|SpaDeX}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result:Protected ) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garundam}}


'''Previous version reverted to:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269842031'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Copper indium gallium selenide}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|59.120.72.94}}


'''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. -->
# 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


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:


<!-- 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> <br />The user was reportedly pointed to ], yet continues to ignore. ] (]) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Garudam&diff=prev&oldid=1270190529


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


Looks like nationalistic indians refusing to compromise and using wiki rules to prevent newcomers making good faith changes
== ] reported by ] (Result: stale) ==
] (]) 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)
'''Page:''' {{article|Heterosexism}} <br />
::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)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Heqwm2}}
*{{AN3|nb|1 week}} ] (]) 15:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Battle of Jamrud}}
Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Noorullah21}}
<!-- 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:


'''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. -->
Removing a reference.
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
Refuses to disucss


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{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:'''
These reverts are the same as Heqwm2's reverts before his/her last ban
# {{diff2|1270110872|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
*
# {{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 ]."
*
except that Heqwm2 is now also deleting a reference.


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# {{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>
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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)


: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.
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
:“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”


<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
] (]) 07:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


: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)
::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 ], 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) ==
Once again, Dr.enh is engaging in edit warring while claiming to be the victim. He has absolutely refused to discuss the issues on the talk page. Despite me starting a section on the discussion page to discuss the issue, he repeatedly reverted my edits without responding. When I put an edit war warning on his talk page, he retaliated by putting one on my talk page. Just to be clear: the edit war warning that he put on my talk page was in response to reverts that I made after he gave ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE ''WHATSOEVER'' to the talk page section that I created to discuss the issue. He did finally give a "response" that did not address my points at all, and six minutes later (and without any intervening edits on my part) put the edit war warning on my page. He has repeatedly removed a {{fact}) tag without giving a valid reference. After removing the invalid reference once, I simply put in the {{fact}} tag. His statement "Heqwm2 is now also deleting a reference" is false. I am simply re-adding a {{fact}} tag that he insists on removing without giving a valid reference. Also, his labeling of the first diff a "revert" is dishonest. He reverted my edit, claiming that I needed a cite, so I made a new edit including a source (which he then reverted). My edit was not a revert.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|StopAntisemitism}} <br />
Dr.enh has made it clear that he has no intention of editing with good faith, and I ask that he be blocked.] (]) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4}}
: {{AN3|w}}. Closing as stale. Not worth protecting the article yet, but suggesting the editors seek outside input. - ] <small>(])</small> 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: no vio) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
#
{{Article|Eleventh night}}. {{3RRV|HJ_Mitchell}}: Time reported: 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
#
#
#


''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''


# <small>(edit summary: "] edits by ] (]) to last version by Ulster15rugby")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] edits by ] (]) to last version by P Carn")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] edits by ] (]) to last version by HJ Mitchell")</small>


—] (]) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
A violation of 3RR occurs when ''more'' than three reverts are made, which haven't been made yet by HJ_Mitchell (though it still doesn't exclude the situation from being an edit war).


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Also, just to point it out, 86.12.24.209 has violated the 3RR:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*
*
*
<b>~<i><font color="#07517C">]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">]</font></b> <small>] ]</small> 20:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
:Indeed, so it's somewhat backward (and rather comical) that I should be reported by the violator! I've reverted edits that appear to be unconstructive while patrolling the recent changes. The IP editor has responded to warnings, made with an assumption of good faith (and later no faith assumption) with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I informed him (assuming, sorry) that the simple use of an edit summary would solve the problem and was greeted with abuse. For context, at least one other editor has reverted seemingly unconstructive edits by this IP on the same article and issued the relevant level warning. I'm tempted to report 86.12.24.209 to WQA, though I haven't decided on that yet. ] ] 20:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Next Danish general election }} <br />
:Several changes are involved in that edit/revert. At least one of 86.12's changes was uncontroversially constructive: turning multiple duplicate refs into one ref with a refname thereafter invoked for later cites. Why was ''this'' change not left in place, rather than being repeatedly reverted? <small>— ] (]/]) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)</small>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Thomediter}}
::Because the edit appeared to be vandalism. It was a sizeable removal of content with no explanation in any of the edit summaries or personal attacks and it was flagged up by an abuse filter. I checked the history, 86.12.24.209 is not a regular contributor to the article and so I reverted and issues a {{tl|uw-delete1}} which makes an assumption of good faith and suggests the use of an edit summary if the change was constructive (as opposed to issuing {{tl|uw-vandal1}} which appears to assume bad faith). Instead of removing the warning, re-doing the change and noting the mistake in an edit summary, 86.12.24.209 met it with confrontation but that's a matter for another noticeboard. ] ] 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:::HJ Mitchell clearly meant well, but that does not excuse either party from reverting each other's edits with a nonconstructive result. In terms of edit warring alone, neither anon. user and HJ are excused from edit warring. <b>~<i><font color="#07517C">]</font></i><font color="#6FA23B">]</font></b> <small>] ]</small> 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:::For an IP user to edit without a summary does not, in itself, constitute "vandalism". Your own edit summaries "Reverted edits by... to last version by..." state ''what'' you did but not ''why''. "Removing" content, by combining multiple duplicate refs into one ref-with-refname, does not in fact remove any information; it only reduces needless repetition of the ''same'' information. There seems to be a need to study ]; note that "Failing to use the edit summary" is ''not'' vandalism. <small>— ] (]/]) 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)</small>
::::I am well aware of what is and is not vandalism. I'm an experienced rollbacker and recent changes patroller. As for my own edit summaries, they are automatically generated by the rollback feature. Look at this from my perspective:
::*I know ''nothing'' about the article or its history and, while patrolling recent changes, I come across an IP who had never edited the article before and ''appeared'' (we can thrash that out in another venue if you really want) to be removing a large amount of text from an article, triggering an abuse filter. Now, if you were in my position, you wouldn't think that suspect at least?
::*Further to my reversion, I left a warning on the IP's talk page which explained, in a way that assumes good faith, about ''removal of content'' '''not''' ''vandalism''.
::*You can imagine my surprise to find that, within minutes, another editor has reverted exactly the same edit and issued the next level warning
::*You can imagine my further surprise to find myself being called an "officious bureaucrat" on my talk page by said IP and to see said IP reverting the second reverter without attempting to engage either in discussion or explanation in the edit summary despite the condescending comments which show he knows how to use it.
::*I made another 2 reverts (taking me up to 3), each time explaining very clearly on his talk page ''why'' I reverted to be met with a report here only for the IP to revert me again, thus taking ''his'' total to 4- a violation of 3RR.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
However, the edit war that he started, in which ''he'' violated the 3RR and in which ''he'' made the last revert but only after reporting me for doing what he was about to do is not the issue.
#
If he had simply gone with a "undid revision by HJ Mitchell.... I'm replacing a duplicate ref with a refname" or some such, I would have left it but reverting and reverting that fast only reinforced my conception that it was vandalism. It has since been pointed out to me that the edit was constructive and {{big|I apologise unreservedly for my misconception}}. However, I hope 86.12.24.209 can take from this that people don't issue warnings about removal of content or vandalism lightly an that the attitude he displayed in reverting and attacking those reverting seemingly unconstructive edits is not the way to go.
#
#
#


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.
Now will someone please close this so I can get on with building the encyclopaedia. ] ] 23:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:::: Just a note to SuperHamster: I'm sure everyone knows that the number of reverts isn't particularly adhered to, on either side of the figure three - it seems instead to be judged usually by a closing admin. I do appreciate though, that you recognise this in your bracketed remark. Also, by publishing this report, obviously I am not trying to hide the fact that I made reverts myself. Any and all interested or involved parties can and will clearly see the edit history of the article and will notice my own reverts. However, in making this report I am representing myself.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
:::: I would like to point out to HJ Mitchell that I have not violated anything.. apart from 3RR, which wouldn't have occurred had you used common sense with regard to the issue. You attempt to point out that it is "backward and comical" that I should report you based simply on the number of reverts made by each party. "Oh he did it more than me, so he's the more guilty". The fact is that the person adding the initial information is ALWAYS the loser when it comes to this numbers game. I have witnessed people ] in this way. As an aside - I am NOT suggesting you are trying to game the system here. However, my point remains.
*], 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)
::{{AN3|d}} per above and reported editor's inactivity. ] (]) 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
:::: While you may think it comical, I have a similar opinion with regard to your actions relating to the article itself: you saw it having been tagged by a bot, presumably noticed a difference in the size of the article, and ] I had indulged in some vandalism, as you admit. I have never given a warning template to another editor of Misplaced Pages based solely on assumption, that I can remember. I certainly haven't done it repeatedly with the same edit. If I see something I think might be amiss, I do a little investigation: "maybe there's a logical reason behind this apparently strange edit". I don't mind wasting my own time, but I hate others wasting my time.. and I try to consider other editors in respect of that.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
:::: The other editor did indeed revert my edit shortly after you had, and I had reverted the article back. I included an edit summary advising you (and the other editor) of the situation. While that summary may have been trite, there is a limited space available and I was quite incredulous at having been reverted in the first place, for no good reason other than that you took the word of a bot. All this does really, is show the limitations of an over-abundance of over enthusiastic bureaucracy and the limitations of a bot (which is probably, otherwise, a perfectly well written and useful bot).
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
:::: As for alleged personal attacks and assumption of bad faith, let me remind you that your tone was rather patronising, as well as not assuming good faith. Protocol, or guidelines, suggest that at that point I should report you, rather than continue in dialogue with you. However, I didn't think it was necessary to bother anyone else. I had actually assumed you would see sense. I can't actually see that I have made any personal attacks. I believe I merely made statements of fact, albeit rather bluntly. I did employ sarcasm, truth be told, when I said "have a nice day", of course. Nor can I see where I have not assumed good faith - I basically hit your problem on the head like the proverbial nail. I explained as much in my edit summary after your revert (in which there was no edit summary either, by the way.. although you did leave a nice 'warning' on the talk page of this IP).


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:::: Now, possibly because you won't admit your error in judgement or lack of pre-investigation, you are considering opening up yet another report, based on etiquette apparently. Sizzle Flambé was right when they suggested you threw the baby out with the bathwater and now, to add in another metaphor, you are considering throwing good money after bad - wasting more of both your time and my time.
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:::: There is far too much of this crap on Misplaced Pages, which means that hard work seldom gets done. It is one of the principle reasons I am no longer a regular contributor. Well, good luck if you do decide to make a case for bad etiquette. Who knows - I might even show up for comment.


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
:::: Let me try to end this on a more positive note: I know you probably meant well HJ, but you .. messed up. I'd like to try to be fair and attempt to share some of the blame with you but, really, all I tried to do was improve an article at the end of the day. I guess that'll teach me, huh? --] (]) 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
::::: I see I have been writing while another response has been made. Firstly, I resent the accusation that I am male. Let's go into list format for the remainder of my responses:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
:::::* You might need to brush up on what is and what is not vandalism, because you clearly got it wrong on this occasion.
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.
:::::* My edit summaries, with my reverts, were also automatically generated, yet I managed to include - at your request, I believe - an additional manual input.
:::::* ''"I know nothing about the article or its history"'' .. perhaps this points out another flaw of Misplaced Pages, frankly.
:::::* I did indeed remove an amount of unnecessary text from the article. However - and this is where you and I apparently differ - what I would do is check the article itself for '''''actual''''' vandalism, instead of merely suspected vandalism. Then, if nothing was clear to me, I would have performed an edit history comparison: "compare selected revisions".
:::::* Officious bureaucrat may not be the most flattering way to describe someone, but I feel it was apt.
:::::* My first comment to you was in the edit summary, and clearly defined your problem: ''"stop listening to bots! No information was removed - info was ADDED!"'' I don't quite understand why you didn't accept what I had said at that point. It was at exactly this point that I believed you had initiated an edit war, by the way. However, I didn't report you then because I thought a clearer message on your talk page might end the dispute.
:::::* That you made only a third revert, and I made four, is due to the fact that another editor made the same mistake you had.
:::::* As far as ''"people don't issue warnings about removal of content or vandalism lightly"'' goes.. let me remind you that people don't necessarily give up their spare time to edit this encyclopaedia lightly. You are not the only one who is building an encyclopaedia.
:::::* I accept your apology and echo your sentiment regarding moving on.


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)
--] (]) 00:20, 22 December 2009 (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. ] (]) 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)
::::Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --] (]) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Probability and statistics}}
I'll take most of that as fair comment. Now, I'd much rather be editing in the mainspace than project space so can we agree to disagree and get back to what we're really here for? ] ] 02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
: {{AN3|nv}} No action needed at this time. - ] <small>(])</small> 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Logoshimpo}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: indef) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{article| Leib Tropper }} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Truth Transparency}}


'''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. -->


Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , .
Previous version reverted to:


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: #
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th 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 -->


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1270081668|20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Here is the of where I offered him the opportunity to revert his edit.
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)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 36 hours, reporter blocked 24, and page protected for a week) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Nachos}}
User been repeatedly reinserting a link that other users have removed as unreliable. These edit are all since this afternoon. ] (]) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:He was for repeatedly adding the same content on the 18th of this month. ] (]) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Rauzoi}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: stale) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|2009 American League Division Series}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|98.240.184.20}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|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:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1270460344|17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: (reflects 4 consecutive edits by 98.240.184.20)
* 2nd revert: (reflects 3 consecutive edits by 98.240.184.20)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


98.240.184.20 has made several other similar edits to this page as evidenced in his/her contribution history since 15 October 2009. The most recent have been and .


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


Frequently removing and replacing sourced content that identifies Nachos as "Tex-Mex" rather than "Mexican" ] (]) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
:{{AN3|bb}} Rauzoi for 36 hours and Crasias for 24 (one less revert over the limit). ] does not cover this. Furthermore ...
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
:{{AN3|p}} Extended-confirmed for a week since, as both editors are autoconfirmed only, they will not be able to resume hostilities once the blocks expire. The talk page hasn't been used in months. ] (]) 23:04, 19 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 -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (reflects my last contribution to the talk page)

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
At issue here is the wording of a controversial baseball call. {{user|Felyza}} gave 98.240.184.20 an opportunity to explain his/her position on the article talk page, and consensus went against him/her. He/she has continued to make the same or similar edits against consensus and despite the edit warring warning linked above. <span style="color:#808080">]</span><sup><span style="color:#008080">]</span></sup> 21:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

:The disputed content is about some what-if's. It had been re-worded several times to make it sound more neutral. I think some proper terms, such as "claim", "speculation", etc. should be kept to remind readers the predictive meanings. The dispute resolution process was held in the talk page but 98.240.184.20 just refused to follow.--] (]) 23:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

* {{AN3|s}} IP engaging in ]. Semiprotection probably not necessary at this time, but please come back if they do. - ] <small>(])</small> 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: no vio) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Volkswagen Group}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|78.32.143.113}}

Persistent edit warring regarding nomenclature used to refer to Volkswagen Group and Volkswagen AG.

Previous version reverted to:

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''
# <small>(edit summary: "rv editorial opinion")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 331615769 by ] (]) the English language name is "Volkswagen Group"")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "fixed redirects, tweaks, clarity, corrections, "Volkswagen Group" and "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft" are an identical company, re-inserted previous vandalism to remove official acronyms")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "MOS compliance for abbreviations, rv editorial opinion")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 333354586 by ] (]) it IS an editorial opinion - otherwise cite your source!")</small>

Also reverting what appear to be good faith edits, claiming "possible vandalism":

# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332571237 by ] (]) possible vandalism - blanked section")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 332570573 by ] (]) possible vandalism")</small>

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

The user at this IP address has a history of engaging in edit warring in various articles including ] ({{ph|ETKA|history}}), ] ({{ph|List of Volkswagen Group factories|history}} - 6 reverts in total, plus unwarranted accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism) and ] ({{ph|Unit Injector|history}}). In addition the user has already received a warning from an Administrator about edit warring and was reported by another user on ] (although that was not an appropriate action at that time).

—] (]) 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:Erm, I WILL reply to this in good time - but I MUST immediately raise the issue that ] has blatantly LIED in this citation - not to mention the numerous personal attacks he places on my own talk page! ] (]) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

*{{AN3|nve}} IP is a long term good faith contributor. Problem should be amenable to discussion at the talkpage, which has the attention of all involved editors. - ] <small>(])</small> 03:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Arab Christians}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Lanternix}}

<!-- 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:

<!-- 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 -->
In each of the diffs presented, Lanternix removes the listing of Egypt and its Christian population.

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , though Lanternix is well aware of what 3RR is.

<!-- 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:

Please note that Lanternix has been edit-warring at ] over the same content for over a year now (sample diffs from October 2008: , , , ). It is very difficult to reason with this editor given their refusal to entertain POVs oither than their own and their tendency to edit-war to impose their POV. I have left many an article out of fear of being dragged into an edit war and was dragged into one here (I reverted twice myself). I stopped though when I noticed what was happening. When an IP added similar information and Lanternix deleted it again, I warned him/her to give a chance for self-reversion. With none forthcoming, an with noting s/he will not self-revert, I decided to file this report. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|d}} Self-reverted, so letting this go. -- ''']''' 03:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Arab Christians}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tiamut}}

<!-- 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. -->

<!-- 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. -->
*
*
*

<!-- 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 -->
In each of the diffs presented, Tiamut insists on including Egyptian Copts in the article, in spite of the various references I provided him/her with, which state that Egyptian Copts are not Arabs. I even tried to reach a compromise with the user by finding a middle ground and renaming the article "Arabic-speaking Christians" or "Middle Eastern Christians", but the user has declined this offer. There are also IP addresses involved in reverting my edits (IP 86.108.40.104 and IP 84.109.85.121), and I am hereby requesting an investigation as to the relationship between the user Tiamut and these IP addresses. I had already reached a compromise on the issue during the previous year and again , but in spite of the efforts made by everyone else to find a middle ground, and thus the article was reverted back to be called ''Arab Christians'', which did not initially include the Egyptians. I have no problem with finding a compromise, as long as it actually agrees with history and with the self-determined identity of the Copts as Egyptians and not Arabs.

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , though Tiamut is well aware of what 3RR is.

<!-- 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 by reaching a compromise and a middle ground for the dispute:

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

:I don't know if you've actually ''read'' ], but it takes '''more''' than three reversions to be in violation.
:If you want somebody to check whether Tiamut is related to those IPs, the appropriate page is ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't know if you've actually ''read'' the tile of this page, but it is not just about 3RR, but about edit warring, and the first line says "Use this noticeboard to report recent violations of the three-revert rule,''' and active edit warriors.'''"
::I see. In that case, I will undo my own reverts on ] then. Thanks for the help. --]</sup>]] 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:::When you go to ], you will see it clearly syays "any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached." It takes some nerve to report an editor for 4 reversions, when you have made 3 reversions on the same page. Both should be blocked. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::If you review the page history, you would see that Tiamut made '''two''' reversions on the page. The fact that Lanternix includes her first edit to the page as a reversion doesn't make it so. She acknowledged above that she reverted twice. Maybe she's been engaged in edit-warring and maybe she hasn't, but she hasn't committed a 3RR violation whereas Lanternix had (until Lanternix agreed to undo the last reversion). —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::I have reviewed the page history, unlike you, apparently. The first diff listed by Lanternix is a clear revert of . She made 3 reverts he made 4. technicalities aside, they are both edit warring and need to be treated the same. ] (]) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

:This is pathetic! What exactly makes of Tiamut's first rv not an rv?!!!! Tiamut clearly clicked the "undo" button as she was doing so! Isn't that a reversion?! Some objectivity here please. --]</sup>]] 00:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

::3RR is not designed to punish people trying to add new information to an article. When I first added the information that was the first new version of the page in that format. When I undid Lanternix's deletion of that addition, twice, I made two reversions to that previous version. That is why we are asked to append a previous version to which the article is being reverted.
::I'm not sure who the anon IP is, but considering Lanternix's history of sockpuppeting, I would be skeptical that it is disinterested party. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Id say its 5-1 that it is the artist formerly known as NoCal100 <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
::::That was my second guess. Isarig (NoCal100 before he vanished) used to love to bring me to these boards. Back in 2007, he got me blocked three times. I'm sure he would love to see it happen again here. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::you've already been blocked three times for edit warring and you are here '''again''', edit warring? how long of a block does this need to be in order for you to get the message? ] (]) 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

*{{AN3|no}} I haven't the slightest idea what violation you're talking about. -- ''']''' 03:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: no vio) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Heavy metal music}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|WesleyDodds}}

<!-- 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:

<!-- 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 -->

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

User has been about edit-warring and pushing his own opinion upon this article, despite the number of sources contradicting the addition of a single band name in association with a genre that this band has been significantly sourced to not be a part of. He claims that the removal of the band name "changes the meaning of what the source says", despite the fact that no other part of the sentence has been changed, and the addition of a band that is not a part of the subgenre claimed by the source doesn't add anything significant to this article. ] (]) 00:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nve}} Recommend filing a ] rather than continuing a slow motion ]. Protection seems overkill at this stage, but should be considered if disruption continues. - ] <small>(])</small> 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' I want to point out that Ibaranoff is editing cited material, even though I have pointed out that that's what the ref listed says. My edits are based on what the citation says. He did not assume good faith and accused me of pushing an opinion in his first message to me. Personally I have no vested interest in System of a Down and its relation to nu metal; rather, I'm concerned with accurately representing a citation that was added during a massive rewrite of the article during its Featured Article Review. Furthermore, editing this one sentence is his only current contribution to the article. I don't plan to push this, but I wish Ibaranoff was open to discussion first instead of accusing me (incorrectly) of violating 3RR. ] (]) 07:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
::*'''Comment''' My edits did ''not'' change the meaning of the text. (] (]) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

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

'''Page:''' {{article|North American Union}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|The Devil's Advocate}}

Previous version reverted to: - does not have the sourced and cited quote

* 1st revert: - first removal of the quote, calling it "POV pushing"
* 2nd revert: - second removal
* 3rd revert: - third removal, now calling it a "poorly-written sentence"
* 4th revert: - fourth removal

Text being being edit-warred over:
<blockquote>It ] ] was described by the leaders as being a dialog, not an agreement nor a treaty and that the SPP "does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status."<nowiki><ref name="spp faq"/></nowiki></blockquote>

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the 40k of discussion at ]

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

While not the speediest edit war on record, The Devil's Advocate has been persistently removing the same sentence that does not fit his personal world view, regardless of the fact that three other editors have told him that the content in question is properly sourced and cited. While the extensive, four-person discussion on the talk page verges well into ] territory, after two weeks of discussion on this issue The Devil's Advocate continues to revert the article back to the version ] without the quote. Since Orangemike and I are obviously involved in this dispute, I am requesting that an un-involved admin investigate. Thanks, — ] (]) 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
:I concur with Kralizec's report. The Advocate is quite convinced that the above-quoted sentence is intended to mislead, and therefore should not be in the article, because he '''''knows''''' that the quoted sentence is misleading, and the rest of us are just trying to cover up ]. --] &#x007C; ] 16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

==] reported by ] (]) (Result: )==
*] violation on
{{Article|List_of_ISO_image_software}}. {{3RRV|FleetCommand}}: Time reported: 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

# <small>(edit summary: "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see ]")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Removed duplication information; The fact that article survived deletion does not mean that it should become ''Content Fork in the same article''")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 333396933 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Removed one self-link")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Unmerging article....")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Renominated for deletion")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "It's "Bold" not "impertinent", "disruptive" and "deceiving"")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 333563779 by ] (]) AFD for destination page still pending... Unmerged...")</small>

* Diff of warning:

—] (]) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also at: {{Article|Comparison_of_ISO_image_software}} --] (]) 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 1 week) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Vushtrri}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tadija}}


<!-- 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:




<u>Comments:</u>Tadija was put on indefinite 1RR on all Kosovo-related articles a few days ago. This is a clear violation. Action should be taken, as this user is not trying to cooperate with anyone. Here you can see the sanctions put on him <br/>

*{{AN3|b|1 week}} ] (]) 00:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Thegoodlocust}}

Previous version reverted to:

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Diffs of reliable source warnings on user talk page:

Diff of personal attack warming on user talk page:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

;Comments
] was bold and added a new section to the ] article at He was reverted by ] at with Scjessey noting a "non-neutral addition that cites blogs, etc.." Thegoodlocust did not follow ] and returned to add the disputed material again with a revert at , with the edit summary, "Not a blog Scjessey and an easily confirmed error." At this point, I arrived to take a look at the sources and the material. I found what appeared to be intentional deception on the part of Thegoodlocust, including original research and synthesis, all being advanced with the use of an . The rest of the sources are primary, and say nothing about the disputed content. They are essentially being used in a deceptive manner. I removed the material as a gross violation of NPOV, OR, and RS, while I endured several personal attacks on my talk page and in edit summaries from the user. ] (]) 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
: TGL has left a message on my talk page explaining the situation . It appears that he had hit undo to retrieve some of his old text and somehow saved the page. Please take this into consideration. Perhaps a pledge on his part of restrain himself on that article for a suitable time might suffice. I suggested that in the future he could simply self-revert in this type of a situation. The offending material has already been reverted so there is no particular emergency here. --] (]) 00:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with what GoRight says, however, my concern is that ] edit warred not only to advance the ideas in the , but he did so knowing that the author of the blog, a man named ], is attacking the reliability of the IPCC report for using a report by the ] which was not peer-reviewed. In the height of irony, Gammon uses his personal blog, which clearly states at the top that it is not under any editorial control, to engage in original research about the IPCC and the WWF! Thegoodlocust then uses the personal blog to get under the radar of the OR policy. I find this very deceptive. ] (]) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
: Sigh. Looking at the timestamp on the message he left on my talk page, it was left at 23:13, 23 December 2009 but the fourth revert appears to have been done at 23:32, 23 December 2009 so I don't know what to make of that. Perhaps he is confused about how things work when you hit undue? I don't know but I have conveyed his message per his request. At this point I will leave it to the reviewing administrators to decide how best to proceed.<p>The issues raised by V above are probably best dealt with as part of the content dispute on the article itself. --] (]) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
::I think we all agree that he broke the 3RR with four reverts, but if you can get him to acknowledge here that he will use the talk page to propose and discuss his ideas in the future, I would ask the reviewing administrator to take this into account and consider closing this report without a block. I'm looking for some acknowledgment that he's going to change the way he's doing things. He's clearly a smart kid, but he needs to put it to good use. Trying to undercut NPOV and OR with edit warring isn't the way to do it. And GoRight? This isn't a content dispute. ] (]) 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
::: The 3RR is obviously not a content dispute, but the rest of that bit about Gammon and WWF and such seems like it to me. Anyway, I don't wish to debate the point here. Suffice it to say that I have given him some advice on his talk page and directed him here. The rest is up to him. --] (]) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
:::: One final point of clarification. He was initially using a blog entry but has subsequently switched to a BBC article that IS a RS. --] (]) 00:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There's been a lot of edit warring going on there (not just ]) so I've asked for full protection to encourage all parties to discuss. --] 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
:Indeed. Setting content aside for the moment, multiple parties have engaged in the edit war rather than discussing, so the least draconian solution would be to protect the article and perhaps caution all sides against edit warring rather than to start issuing blocks. Page protection ought to be brief because this article regards a current event and is getting about 1,000 page views daily. (I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of that traffic is the edit warriors themselves). - ] (]) 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

: I think calling the article on the IPCC an "article a current event" is a bit much. We can afford to spend a bit of time out to get this right. --] 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
::That's shorthand to mean that the article is getting increased traffic from people who are trying to understand an unfolding event that is in the news. If you look at the long-term trends it looks like traffic is up about 50-80% this month over past months, which is significant but not earth-shaking. The proposed content is argumentative and adversarial on the face of it, but not so much so that a neutral admin is likely to remove it over page protection. I would argue that leaving it up as the "wrong version" for the duration of a longish (say 2-week) block will subject many thousands of people to bad content that does a disservice to the reader and reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages. However, given the choice between blocking editors, leaving up bad content, intentionally protecting the "right version", or asking admins to enter a content dispute, I think that a shorter (3-5 days, so that those celebrating Christmas can have a break?) page protection is the lesser of all these evils. - ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

==] reported by ] (]) (Result: )==
*] violation on
{{Article|Tin Whistle}}. {{3RRV|Mister Flash}}

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

*

*

*

*


* Diff of warning and Response:

I accept it takes two to edit war. In mitigation of my own actions I wish to Highlight MF's comment at ].
] (]) 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, I have seen this, this is a fall over from editors going round multiple articles inserting what they think or desire an article t reflect as regards Ireland and the british, Mister Flash has done nothing worthy of a block, all he has done is resist the pov push. ] (]) 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:04, 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
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166
    1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    User: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)

    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)

    Previous version reverted to:

    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)

    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:

    1. 17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
    2. 17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?"
    3. 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."
    4. 11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Discussion: He was born in 1320. Give a source?"
    5. 09:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    6. 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."
    7. Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    8. 08:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Timur."
    2. 10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Birthdate */ ping"

    Comments:

    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)

    {{subst:AN3 report|diffs=# 19:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    1. Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 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!"
      2. 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269997191 by Terrainman (talk) Irrelevant unless it's properly sourced"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Stout has never been a type of ale, weak sourcing too."
      2. 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Oatmeal stout */Not notable"|warnings=|resolves=
    4. 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)

    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:

    1. 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.)"
    2. 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.)"
    3. 16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
    4. 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"."
    5. 11:55, 14 January 2025 11:55 "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of religious slurs."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
    2. 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:

    1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269957055
    2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269973309
    3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269998618
    4. 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)

    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:

    1. 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.."
    2. 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."
    3. 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:

    1. 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"
    2. 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."
    3. 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:

    1. 10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
    2. 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    3. 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    4. 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    5. 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    6. 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    7. 02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    8. 02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    9. 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)

    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)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    User:Thomediter reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Declined)

    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:

    1. 23:19, 17 January 2025
    2. 11:09, 18 January 2025
    3. 13:03, 18 January 2025
    4. 14:05, 18 January 2025

    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)
    Declined per above and reported editor's inactivity. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 19 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:

    1. – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
    2. – same
    3. – same
    4. – same
    5. – same, now with PA

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: clarification on style guide at user talk page

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

    Comments:
    User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the light middleweight and middleweight divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, MOS:BOXING, says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has notably competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was welterweight for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.

    As far as middleweight goes, Benn has never competed anywhere close to that weight class. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had a similar RfC regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. WP:IAR would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Based on this, it could be meaty as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --Dennis Definition (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Logoshimpo reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Blocked 24h)

    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:

    1. Gentle warning on article talk-page

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 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)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Rauzoi reported by User:Crasias (Result: Blocked 36 hours, reporter blocked 24, and page protected for a week)

    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:

    1. 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754 vandalized by Crasias"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270457231 by Crasias (talk)"
      2. 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
      2. 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    5. Consecutive edits made from 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
      3. 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Variations */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    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)

    Both editors blocked Rauzoi for 36 hours and Crasias for 24 (one less revert over the limit). 3RRNO does not cover this. Furthermore ...
    Page protected Extended-confirmed for a week since, as both editors are autoconfirmed only, they will not be able to resume hostilities once the blocks expire. The talk page hasn't been used in months. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic