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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:39, 16 June 2011 editFastily (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled100,543 edits →User:Minphie reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: No Violation): r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:47, 19 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,467 editsm Archiving 8 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
	]		<!--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 = ~~161~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
	}}</noinclude>		}}</noinclude>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude>
	__TOC__</noinclude>
	<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->
	<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	<!-- dummy edit -->

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No ~~Violation~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~South~~ ~~Korea~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Kanetama~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|94.187.8.87}}
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''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. -->
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff 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: (reverted )
	* 2nd revert: (reverted )

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- 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 />
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			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)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (after 1st revert)
			:{{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) ==
	<!-- 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: n/a

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Aubrey Plaza}} <br />
	<u>Comments:</u> User repeatedly restoring own edits without any comment or edit summary, never responded to edit warring warning left at talk page. I know it doesn't surpass 3RR, but user's unwillingness to engage in discussion and intentional restoration of edits that he knows are under dispute clearly constitute edit warring, which per ] is just as inappropriate as 3RR violations. User has a prior edit warring warning, although no block history. <b class="IPA">]</b> (]) 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ibeaa}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|c}} Have you attempted to resolve the issue directly with the editor before issuing a warning and reporting them? + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 08:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
	:*{{AN3\|nve}} ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mahasti}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Juustine}}

	<!-- 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. -->

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ;
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's 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:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- 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 -->
			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\|one week}}. ] (]) 17:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 20:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Timur}}
	<!-- 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:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tamerlanon}}
	<u>Comments:</u> Thanks to the bot for notifying the defendant. ] (]) 21:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
	:Off note, but yes, it's here to help ^-^ + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 22:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
	::'''Note''': User has stopped a few hours ago, and I've left them a friendly, non-templated message explaining exactly what to do and why to do it. imo this case doesn't need a block, just someone willing to help this new user get used to things here. ]<small> (])</small> 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
	:::'''Seconded''': The user does appear to be editing ] and is just uneducated as per the policies on Misplaced Pages. It wouldn't be beneficial for a block, as stated above, just someone to give them a helping hand and give them comprehension of the editing policies. + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 09:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|s}} However, this report would have been actionable at the time. Thanks to {{u\|Ajraddatz}} for the polite note. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 13:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Malformed, No Vio) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|<!-- Ibibio language-->}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1270047251\|17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|<!-- Kwamikagami\|kwami-->}}
			# {{diff2\|1270045995\|17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?"
			# {{diff2\|1270040416\|16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
			# {{diff2\|1269989123\|11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Discussion: He was born in 1320. Give a source?"
			# {{diff2\|1269974575\|09:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269974278\|09:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269967855\|diff=1269969911\|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269968118\|08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1269969911\|08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269966433\|08:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Efik_language&dir=prev&action=history
			# {{diff2\|1269972530\|09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1269987649\|10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1269994020\|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}}. ] (]) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert: [(cur \| prev) 02:56, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk \| contribs) (1,773 bytes) (undo)
	(cur \| prev) 02:54, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk \| contribs) m (1,577 bytes) (moved Talk:Ibibio language to Talk:Efik language: move per Talk) (undo)

			== Edit-warring IP ==
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			The IP has been deleting sourced information in the article of ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] since 1st of January and edit-warring on the article of ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] and ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]. It appears that the user wants to have everything "Albanian" removed.
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			They also removed "Albanian" from the article of ] and replaced it with Serbian. </nowiki>] As I can't notify IPs about ongoing discussions, I will leave it like that. It appears that the user possesses no will for encyclopedic cooperation. ] (]) 19:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			:{{AN3\|m}} ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Efik_language
			::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)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Efik_language
			:::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)}} ""
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270003652\|diff=1270044450\|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1270043159\|17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] ([[User talk Sorry, but they don't stand up historically.To claim that stout is a strong version of mild ale is just embarrassing!"
			## {{diff2\|1270044450\|17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1270000487\|12:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Irrelevant unless it's properly sourced"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1263595504\|diff=1269993652\|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269993388\|11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Stout has never been a type of ale, weak sourcing too."
			## {{diff2\|1269993652\|11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Oatmeal stout */Not notable"\|warnings=\|resolves=
			# {{diff2\|1270073178\|19:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Haldraper}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."\|pagename=Stout\|orig=\|comment=See also the reverts at ]. Haldraper has crossed the 3RR in both cases. ]. ] 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)\|uid=Haldraper}}

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

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks\|Astius}}, {{pagelinks\|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks\|Angelina of Serbia}} <br />
	*{{AN3\|c}}. No violation: ] doesn't violate the ], see: / . ] actually highlights several personal attacks directed against Kwamikagami. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.0em 0.0em 0.0em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|187.36.171.230}}
	*{{AN3\|no}} and '''Malformed''' – There must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the ] to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The reporter does not appear to understand the noticeboard, ] or the syntax for actually adding a report. + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 09:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
	:*{{AN3\|n}} Warned user regarding invalid ] reports. + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' Christianity in Kosovo: , Astius: , John Koukouzelis:
	:] '''Malformed''' – The report is formatted in a way that is unreadable by the automated processing system. Please ensure the report header and body follow the guidelines. Refer to the ] for more information. ~ ] <small>(])</small> 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>]

	'''Nixle:''' <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|71.188.67.25}}

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' -
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' -, but
	<!-- 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:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- 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 />
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			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)
	<!-- 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}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (expires 12:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)) (expires 12:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)))) (undo)]

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of religious slurs}}
	<As you can see this has been an ongoing problem. The page is continuously vandalized to take Craig Mitnick off the page as co-founder. It is abundantly clear, by the references posted, that Craig co-founded Nixle. This user should be warned by an administrator. If activity continues, maybe the user should be banned for a time.] (]) 23:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC) -->
	*{{AN3\|w}} Report ] to ] if they vandalize the page again. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xuangzadoo}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No Violation) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Efik language}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' ]

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1270040704\|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
			# {{diff2\|1270045411\|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"

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

			All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- 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 -->

			:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week) ==
	<!-- 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:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SpaDeX}} <br />
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garundam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269842031'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|c}}. No violation: I closed ] as a speedy keep (] #1, #2.1, #2.2, and #2.4) and subsequently came under fire. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.0em 0.0em 0.0em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|noex}} The reporter does not appear to understand the noticeboard, ] or the syntax for actually adding a report. + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 09:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
	:*{{AN3\|n}} Warned user regarding invalid ] reports. + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page Protected) ==
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269957055
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=126997dsver sg3309
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269998618
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1270115743

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Circumcision}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garycompugeek}}

	<!-- 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:

			'''Diff 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. -->

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	# <small>(edit summary: "replaced long standing well balanced intro")</small>
			https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Garudam&diff=prev&oldid=1270190529
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 433107461 by ] (])revert to much discussed and well balanced intro")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 433607950 by ] (])please do not removed properly sourced well balanced long standing intro")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Restoring long standing well balanced properly sourced intro that was debated and written by many on both sides of the issue")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "no consensus for your proposed changes to intro doc")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 433943266 by ] (])no consensus for rewriting intro restored established well balanced intro")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 434288859 by ] (])no consensus for this new unbalanced intro")</small>

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />fe gs
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This is a report for edit warring, not 3RR. Gary has been warned on several occasions in the past (eg., ), and can reasonably be expected to be aware of applicable policy.
			df d
			Looks like nationalistic indians refusing to compromise and using wiki rules to prevent newcomers making good faith changes
			] (]) 10:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			:You have not linked to efforts to make a cosd e mpromise 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)
	<!-- 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 -->
			::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)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All five sections currently at ] involve this matter.
			*{{AN3\|nb\|1 week}} ] (]) 15:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Battle of Jamrud}}
	I haven't reverted 3 times in a 24 hour period and I have been talking on the discussion page AND Doc's changes do not have consensus. Should he not gain consensus before rewriting entire intro and deleting much properly sourced well balanced data? Jake and I have had many disputes in the past so please evaluate the talk page yourself. ] (]) 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Noorullah21}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	This report is for edit-warring, which in my view has reached an unacceptable level, and (in the last 2-3 days) now appears to be taking place ''instead'' of discussion. ] (]) 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ds fewdv
	If I am in violation so is Doc James. I am trying to discuss on the talk page and have no wish to edit war. ] (]) 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
	*Good grief, folks. Why must we have this constant edit warring over this topic? With the level of edit warring on both sides, I'm not really wanting to issue blocks, and I also don't want to protect the article when there appears to be actual editing going on in addition to the revert warring. Can't we just stop the revert warring? I see there ''is'' talk page discussion going on, at the very least. ] ] 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{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 fd gfds 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. edsgfre dgv
			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:'''
	::We where having some problems on this page with sock puppets. A few have been blocked. Consensus if of course that Misplaced Pages be based on current evidence (within 5 years). Not stuff that is <s>20 years</s> sorry 19 years old. Also we use review per consensus and that is what I have done. ] (] · ] · ]) 01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270110872\|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
	*{{AN3\|p}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270113286\|00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1270205537\|12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
			# {{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>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Windows Phone 7}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Illegal Operation}}

			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)
	Illegal Operation has been ] to remove ]'s market share from the article.

			: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.”
	*
	*
	*
	*


	I have warned the editor to stop edit-warring.

			: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)
	But Illegal Operation continues to edit-war after my warning:
			::A. The instance you pointed out wadf gvdfs 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) ==
	Also note that Illegal Operation was warned against edit-warring on this very same content by an admin on December 13, 2010 so this edit-warring is a long-term problem. ] (]) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	:Apparently, the source http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011051.html did not talk about Windows Phone market share and was removed. Specifically, the statement on Misplaced Pages said that Windows Phone has 2.5% market share, yet this is not said anywhere at the source. Apparently, I am using the ] for discussion, but ] decided to keep re-adding the source and did not use the talk page until today. I have no idea why ] is supporting him. ] (]) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	::Also, the last time I was contacted by an Admin was 6+ months ago and is irrelevant to this discussion. ] (]) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	:::It should be noted that out of the 4 editors discussing this on the talk page, Illegal Operation is the only one against inclusion. So not only is he edit-warring, he's edit-warring against consensus. ] (]) 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	*He's also stopped completely at this point, so I'd recommend that no block be issued (blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive). I've left the user a note on his talk page regarding edit warring. It should also be noted that ]'s actions have not helped at all here. Instead of trying to talk with the editor and find out his side of the story, AQFN has continually left short, commanding messages which only promote hard feelings, not a solution. ]<small> (])</small> 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	::I posted this on Ajraddatz's talk page, but I suppose I should post it here, too. If my messages to Illegal Operation have been curt, it's out of frustration over the fact that he's been edit-warring on this article for 6 months making it very difficult for anyone to work on the article. His latest edit war is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. ] (]) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|s}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|StopAntisemitism}} <br />
	== ] reported by   — ] (2nd report) (Result: 2 weeks) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Acupuncture}}
			w dfedfe
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			#
			#
			#

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Metabradley}}

	'''Time reported:''' 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

	# ~~<small>(edit summary: "see talk page --you scared cynic dogs")</small>~~		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Comments:''' Fresh off a 24 hour block (see ), and immediate return to same edit war.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	— ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 14:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: both warned) ==
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hinduism}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Thisthat2011}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Next Danish general election }} <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Thomediter}}

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

			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.
	<!-- 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:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- 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 />
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			*], 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)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
	<!-- 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:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Conor Benn}} <br />
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GiggaHigga127}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	I can't figure out how to report this right. LOL] (]) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:Try the 3rr helper tool, linked at the top of the page. You need to insert diffs of each revert in the above template. The helper tool will ''help you'' do that, but you'll still need to review its results.   — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 19:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
			# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
	::Also, see ]. You're both edit warring disruptively. You need to stop, and use the talk page, too.   — ]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">· ]]</span> 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
			# – same
	:::Actually, the reported person (Thisthat2011) only reverted once, and the reporter (Thigle) tried to revert to a previous version (by SudoGhost and then followed by his/her version) four times within a period of less than 26 hours , , , . The reporter was blocked twice back in May, and seems to be edit-warring again, despite the fact that she/he is participating in the discussion page. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
			# – same
	::::Try looking through that again - both users have violated the 3rr. I've left messages on both of their talk pages. ]<small> (])</small> 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
			# – same
	:::::I've spotted it now, and have displayed the diffs above, showing how many times the reported person wanted to "Move contents to the History again". This was harder for me to spot because the number of bytes kept changing, but the edit summaries showed what Thisthat2011 wanted to do. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 05:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
			# – same, now with PA
	* {{AN3\|w}} Ajraddatz's messages seem to have had the desired effect. Please open a new report if discussion at ] breaks down. - ] <small>(])</small> 11:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== FOUNTAINVIEWKID is breaking 3RR!!! ==

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	See the article on ]. He has made multple reversions as you can see . I've been trying to remove an unsourced claim that some people were "progressive" and he keeps readding it without explanation. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Actually, both of you are violating 3rr. Please stop reverting and talk it over with the other editor on the article's talk page. ]<small> (])</small> 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	::The Pipim article needs help from the veterans here at wikipedia. I have described my concerns at the ]. I think that the Pipim article, at least the ], needs to be protected from edits for a while, after the section is reverted back to its basic, verifiable, properly cited text.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:] '''Malformed''' – The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <nowiki><!-- --></nowiki> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the ] for more information. ~ ] <small>(])</small> 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

			As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Samuel Koranteng-Pipim}} <br />
			:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Fountainviewkid}}
			::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

	<!-- 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. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* 8th revert:
	* 9th revert:
	* 10th revert:
	* 11th revert:
	* 12th revert:
	* 13th revert:

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

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	<!-- 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 -->
	I've been trying to stop him from readding false information that certain scholars are progresssive under ]. User:50.72.159.224


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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	:I have a feeling, based on editing styles, that user ] is the same as ] is the same as ]. Not that there's anything wrong with editing as an IP, but, you have to play by the rules. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	::Whether or not this was BelloWello or his helpers is hard to say; the IPs evidently are familiar with BelloWello's off-wiki postings. The article has now been locked until 18 June. The IP was restoring information that directly violated ]. In comparison the issue of the internal labels progressive/conservative amongst Seventh Day Adventism editors is becoming so disruptive that the subject of topic bans in this area might have to be discussed again. ] (]) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	:::I thought there was a bot they could run to do a comparison of styles, etc., and make a determination, but when Lionel reported IP 75.128 as a possible sockpuppet of BelloWello, the lame response was "we're not very good at matching IPs and named users." Go figure! --] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	::::I'll throw in something to the ring on the two IPs and say that it's {{Unlikely}} that the two IPs are related ''directly'' to the same user, (Just from a geolocation lookup). However, if a CheckUser can't confirm/state that such is likely to BelloWello, it may just be someone that has the same opinion as them. It '''is''' possible to match IPs and named users via Geolocation in ''certain'' cases assuming at least a high amount of data matches, in most cases, it could only be likely or unlikely. + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 01:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks, Crashdoom. I didn't check the times of the edits. You can't be in Wisconsin and British Columbia at the same time, can you? --] <sup>]</sup> 02:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	::::::You're correct on that. There is a chance that one of the results could be a false-positive due to the potential risk of a proxy being used, either that or, as previously stated, there is more than one person with the same view on the matter. As such, I believe that's the reasoning behind the CheckUsers being not very good matching users and IPs without direct links. + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 02:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::There is a 16 hour break between Wisconsin and Vancouver, so there's no overlap. Both IPs are SPAs. Should I take this to the right (SPI) forum? --] <sup>]</sup> 02:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	::::::::It would be useful since there's a chance due to the match in editing as stated. However, you may get told the same with only an opinion of it being possible/unlikely, due to the IPs not having a directly verifiable link. The time differennce does pose the question that it may be possible via a proxy or such. + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	::::::Actually I can be in Ontario Canada and Delaware at the same time. If I were to edit from my IP on this computer it would say I am in Delaware. If I edit from my cell phone it says I am in Ontario Canada. ] (]) 02:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::With all these ambiguities, how do you ever prove an account is a sockpuppet? --] <sup>]</sup> 02:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	::::::::In some cases, with great difficulty. This does return to the point, that CheckUsers can't say anything is certain unless everything is explicitly linked. Also, the fact that the IP can be edited is unlikely to be used in most cases with average users on Misplaced Pages. + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}} Protection applied by SoWhy. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:No action taken) ==

	'''Page:''' Efik Language'''
	: Previous version
	reverted to:
	* 1st revert: [(cur \| prev) 02:56, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk \| contribs) (1,773 bytes) (undo)
	(cur \| prev) 02:54, 18 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk \| contribs) m (1,577 bytes) (moved Talk:Ibibio language to Talk:Efik language: move per Talk) (undo <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	* Efik Language is not the Same language as Ibibio language and the 2 languages are spoken in different states of Nigeria.
	* There is no language that is called Ibibio-Efik as there is no language that is mixed with the two. Just like there is no language called Spanish-French.
	* There is also another similar language known as Annang, which is similar to Efik and Ibibio just like Italian language is similar to French and Spanish.
	* There are also others like Oron, Eket etc. Which although spoken in the same area are not similar to Efik, Ibibio and Annang, but Kwami is linking all these languages to a Single page.
	* Kwami is not from Nigeria and does not know anyting about these languages. But I am a native Ibibio, I have also lived in the States and areas where Efik and Annang languages are spoken, that is how I learned to speak Efik, so I understand the differences.
	* If you allow this editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Misplaced Pages as an Encyclopedia of Lies!
	:
	If You Allow This editor Kwami's mistakes to remain as it is; Then you are helping to Portray Misplaced Pages as an Encyclopedia of Lies!
	] (]) 23:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	:*{{AN3\|c}} It does appear that you haven't been discussing properly with the editor in question over the issue, also I note: "(cur \| prev) 23:09, 31 May 2011 Ibibiogrl (talk \| contribs) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (undo) ", so it does appear that you have been causing problems for the article, whether it was on purpose or not, I don't know + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 23:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
	::If anything, this case is suffering from some personal attacks. Closing and leaving note on reporting editor's page. ] 08:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Thomas Sowell}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|CartoonDiablo}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert (though not within 24 hours, just to show that edit warring continues):

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

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (disclaimer: this was done just now)

	<!-- 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: and

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	] is a BLP and we should have a high threshold for what we include. Biased sources like ] are not appropriate. There is very clear consensus on the article talk page against including this, with 6 editors (4 usernames, 2 IPs) for removing it and only 1 (]) for keeping it.
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	–] (] • ]) 16:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

	:This is obviously not valid based on the fact that I was not given a 3RR warning prior to being reported, I attempted to resolve the issue multiple times (diffs: and ) and feel the consensus is based on a violation of ]. I will attempt to reach a resolution of whether or not removing the section violates NPOV in the respective noticeboard. ] (]) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} Despite awareness of a discussion on the article's talk page in which several users agreed the source was not reliable, you, CartoonDiablo, edit-warred to keep it in. If that's not grounds for a 3RR block, then it is grounds for block under Disruptive Editing -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Insite}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Minphie}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* 8th revert:
	* 9th 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 -->
	Discussion of why this source should not be used
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	<!-- 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: On further investigation this user may be a sock puppet and thus will also report there on time of here. He/she has been edit warring across a number of pages.

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|nve}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

	::Edit warring is not exclusively 3 reverts within 24 hours per ] ] (] · ] · ]) 20:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	:::You are correct. However, I do not feel this user deserves a block; they edit ] sparingly, and appear to be acting in good faith. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|George Demos}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Brookster22}}

	<!-- 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. -->

	There are many more identical section blankings in the past few days, but these are the four most recent:

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

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

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

	<!-- 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:

	Note: There is also a related sock investigation pending at ]

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	*Brookster22 claims that the reason for their reverts is ] concerns, and has discussed this extensively on the article talk page with other editors. ] also appears to have broken ] on this article (in reverting Brookster22's edits). --] (]) 21:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:47, 19 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

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
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:94.187.8.87 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)

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)

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)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Tamerlanon reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?"
16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Discussion: He was born in 1320. Give a source?"
09:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
09:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
08:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit-warring IP

The IP 187.36.171.230 has been deleting sourced information in the article of Christianity in Kosovo since 1st of January and edit-warring on the article of Astius and John Koukouzelis . It appears that the user wants to have everything "Albanian" removed. They also removed "Albanian" from the article of Angelina of Serbia and replaced it with Serbian. As I can't notify IPs about ongoing discussions, I will leave it like that. It appears that the user possesses no will for encyclopedic cooperation. AlexBachmann (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It's an IP that has no will for encyclopedic cooperation. Since when do we need to open discussions with them? I've seen admins blocking IPs by other users just notifying them on their talkpage. And I did provide diffs. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I know it seems bureaucratic, but we have that form for a reason. It makes it much easier to review these reports. It shouldn't take you too much time to re-enter it properly. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And by the way, you can notify the IP about this; they do have a talk page. It seems from the history that although they recently blanked it (which they're allowed to do), others have used it in the past to notify them of things like ... reports here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
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) ""
12:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269997191 by Terrainman (talk) Irrelevant unless it's properly sourced"
Consecutive edits made from 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
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=
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)

Previous version reverted to: Christianity in Kosovo: , Astius: , John Koukouzelis:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -, but has been warned in the past

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

Comments:

It seems like the user indeed adds suitable content for content that relates to Serbia. Therefore, a topic ban for Kosovo and Albania would be convenient. I don't know if that's possible here, though. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Xuangzadoo reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270059834 by 25 Cents FC (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270040967 by Ratnahastin (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
01:28 15 January 2025 "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
11:55, 14 January 2025 11:55 "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Kanglu */ add"

Comments:

All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.

Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.

Xuangzadoo (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269842031

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: fefdsvekj evne dv

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:
fe gs df d 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 cosd e mpromise or even warned other editors that they might be edit warring. "Nationalistic Indians" is a very serious thing to say and I suggest that you focus on the content and less about the nationality of the editors involved. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see this. Looks like a troll IP to me, making personal attacks. Garuda 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week 331dot ege r (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Noorullah21 reported by User:HerakliosJulianus (Result: )

User being reported: Noorullah21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ds fewdv

Diffs of the user's reverts:

07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270112351 by Noorullah21 (talk): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270108346 by Noorullah21 (talk): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk fd gfds page now to be more clear."
23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements. edsgfre dgv

Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"
00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."
12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"

Comments:

This is not the first time they are edit warring and breaking 3RR, they were previously warned by an admin . There seems to be a habit of them continuously misinterpreting the sources and pushing certain PoVs. They have opted for 3O by themselves but disagreed with the opinion given. Indo-Greek 12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Im not that involved(haven’t reverted anybody, just made a comment on the talk page). As a word of advice because so many people seem to forget this fact, when your adding disputed content, ONUS is on you to attain consensus. Which hasn’t happened here.

“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”

erg eia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

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 wadf gvdfs 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)

Previous version reverted to: w dfedfe Diffs of the user's reverts:

ge gre gmitism&diff=prev&oldid=1270226516

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: vgreE0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4&diff=prev&oldid=1270229278

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: egre gre:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4&diff=prev&oldid=1270232712

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks &#126fd gef g; ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Editor was asked to respect BRD and warned that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning.

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

Comments:

User:Thomediter, I am going to revert your last (fourth) revert; you are indeed edit warring and you're not giving any reasons for your edits, never mind for your ongoing reverts. If you revert one more time you will be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Seek the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

User:GiggaHigga127 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:

– re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
– same
– same
– same
– same, now with PA

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 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)

Categories: