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 11:47, 20 April 2012 editSamofi (talk \| contribs)1,124 edits answ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:22, 19 January 2025 edit undoCFA (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,751 editsm -
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{offer help}}
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
			{{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 = ~~183~~		\|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>
	}}
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	</noinclude>
	{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude>
	__TOC__</noinclude>
	<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->
	<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	<!-- dummy edit -->

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Jayne~~ ~~Mansfield~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Rayburne1997~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|94.187.8.87}}
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* 1st set: (reverted by ])
	* 2nd set: (reverted by ])		#
	* 3rd set: (reverted by ])		#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ] (the whole talk page is essentially a collection of various warnings, including warnings about the Mansfield article ( by ]; , and by ]; and by ]. This user never replies, never discusses and never responds. Never a single edit to any talk page (), though he/she has been warned about a number of edits. And, never an edit summary, which is strange for someone who has the level of intelligence and expertise to change wikicodes and mangle refs (not necessarily on the same article).

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	] commented - "There is definitely something fishy about this user." (see ). I can totally agree. It's the strangest piece of ] I have met so far. But, no matter how curious, this can't go on indefinitely. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 04:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	To explain what I meant by "fishy": this user shows every sign of being an experienced user, but openend an account only on 2nd April. Day one saw a long list of edits to multiple articles with some bold deletions of material, examples: . The third example also shows a working knowledge of templates and ]. All this apparently without any learning process or discussion. These are not the actions of a newbie. I am not necessarily claiming that the edits are wrong, but the lack of communication and the edit warring are extremely problematic. ''']]''' 16:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
			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)
	:Yuck. Not sure on the action to take here; that's pretty mild for "edit warring", and I'm not sure I'd go as far to call it vandalism. Annoying, maybe. Concur that this is likely an account that is picking up from another account, but a quick look at some of the articles did not reveal an obvious candidate. Maybe s/he will communicate at some point? Seems to have completely ignored Mr. Spark's note and just moved to other pages. I'll drop a note there, too. ] ] 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|p\|three days}} by {{u\|Randykitty}} ] (]) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I would say the way forward on this one is to give the user the templated warning (which I have already done). If there is a subsequent complaint of edit warring on any page, from any user, then indef block until they start to communicate. ''']]''' 01:21, 19 April 2012 (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)
	:::Spark, that makes it even more curious. He/she has registered only a few days back, started making bold edits, shows clear knowledge of templates, MOS, wikicodes and other stuff, but no clue of content guidelines, never discusses, never makes and edit summary, keeps warring for silliest edits (like making sortable tables unsortable), shows interest in a particular area (not randomized edits at all)... fishy? You bet.
			:::I wasn't the one who protected it, as noted. But I'll look into it. ] (]) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Kuru, I really have no clue what to do. This editor doesn't transgress 3RR, doesn't stalk or harass, but keeps stubbornly repeating annoying little disruptions, and almost nothing else. We met a similar strangeness in Ilovechocolate (] and ]), who kept claiming and pretending learning disabilities and eventually vanished. I don't think this person is going to respond to your post to his/her talk page. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font></span><sup>(] • ])</sup> 05:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
			:::They shan't trouble you again. At least not on that article. ] (]) 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::As I said, the user has now been warned. If there are any further incidences of repeated insertion of the same material, in any article, then report back - you can contact me directly on my talk page if you like. Don't worry about whether or not it is 3RR, I am quite prepared to block on a single instance if it is not accompanied by discussion. ''']]''' 10:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~warned~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Czechoslovakian~~ ~~Wolfdog~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Aubrey Plaza}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Csvgb~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ibeaa}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- 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. -->

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			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) ==
	This particular user is trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote personal interests and commercial pursuits by removing outside to links and references to public organizations, and replacing them with links/ads to a commercial organization. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Timur}}
	*{{AN3\|w}} I made the account aware of the 3RR policy. I see no attempts to communicate, except through edit summaries. A discussion about the link on the article's talk page would be an important next step (not on some other site's forum as linked above). Frankly, there seem to be several questionable links on that page, but I'll leave it to you to work it out. ] ] 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tamerlanon}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Jessica Simpson}}<br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks‎\|31.205.9.255}}

			'''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\|1270047251\|17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
			# {{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:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1269972530\|09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1269987649\|10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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\|1269994020\|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping"
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert: etc.

			<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 -->
			*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}}. ] (]) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			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.
	<!-- 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 -->
			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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			:{{AN3\|m}} ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			::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)}} ""
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# {{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) ==
	Relentless edit war, unsourced information. User has been duely warned, twice. <font color="#0000FF">Antique</font> <font color="#FF007F">Rose</font> — <font color="red">]</font> 23:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}} Clear problem; warned. No other blocks as BLP is claimed. ] ] 23:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks\|Astius}}, {{pagelinks\|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks\|Angelina of Serbia}} <br />
	*Note that a similar IP ] has just shown up to make the same edits. ] (]) 00:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|187.36.171.230}}
	::Si. Blocked that IP and semi-protected the article. May protect some of the others if he pops up again. ] ] 00:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' Christianity in Kosovo: , Astius: , John Koukouzelis:
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Clemson Tigers football}} <br />
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|98.94.204.96}}
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>]

	<!-- 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. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' -, but
	<!-- 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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Reported user deleted this warning before carrying out 4th revert.)<br>
	(Warning issued by another user for IP sockpuppetry)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Reported user initiated discussion on their own Talk page after deleting 3RR warning, then performed 4th revert before continuing discussion.)

			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)
	<u>Comments:</u> Anonymous IP user kicks off Misplaced Pages editing career by deleting sourced and verifiable material that was merged into this article by consensus back in 2008. I reverted this deletion of content. IP user reverted, and an Undo was performed along with a vandalism warning being posted on IP user's Talk page. IP user reverted again, an Undo was performed and a second vandalism warning was posted on user's Talk page along with a 3RR warning. IP user deleted 3RR warning, and then performed yet another revert. This is a pretty clear cut case of 3RR violation by a user who clearly shows no interest in following relevant Misplaced Pages policy or seeking consensus for significant edits. I'd ask that the article be semi-protected in case this user should decide to use additional IPs to continue this disruptive behavior. Thanks. ] (]) 05:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)<br />
			*{{AN3\|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Hmmmmm. Seems like 2 of those reverts are corrections of the same information. Edit-warring with every other editor & requesting page protection over content you snuck on here against policy doesn't make the content "notable" nor "verifiable." The necessary citations are all there. The section was inadvertently refocused back to it's original subject. Even ] who you attempted to cite above, seems to agree. . ] (]) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
	::This reply confirms that ] is using IP socks to edit war/avoid 3RR. ] (]) 04:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::It doesn't confirm anything. GarnetAndBlack mentioned it in the more lengthy edit warring section below that I had already started working on. And, realistically, I have to work and get some rest at some point. I also noticed that GarnetAndBlack is back to random reverts on the same content on the exact same pages again. Check his contributions. ] (]) 10:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of religious slurs}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xuangzadoo}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Pages:''' {{pagelinks\|Clemson Tigers football}}; also {{pagelinks\|Carolina-Clemson Rivalry}}, {{pagelinks\|Clemson Tigers men's basketball}} related to {{pagelinks\|Clemson University}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GarnetAndBlack}}, {{userlinks\|129.252.69.40}}

			'''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: as GarnetAndBlack
	* 2nd revert: as GarnetAndBlack
	* 3rd revert: as GarnetAndBlack
	* 4th revert: September, 2010
	* 5th revert: September, 2010
	* 6th revert: September, 2010
	* 7th revert: as 129.252.69.40
	* 8th revert: as 129.252.69.40
	* 9th revert: as 129.252.69.41
	*10th revert: August, 2008
	*11th revert: August, 2008

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

			:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
	<!-- 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 -->, ,
			:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />Repeat offender: with pattered behavior brought up on charges for edit-warring and sock-puppetry by editors / administrators in the past, all related to Clemson University articles. . In addition to content removal, school logo & tag removals, "bate & switch" complaint filings, all through various socks cited above, ] seems obsessed with re-posting redundant and biased content in negative reference to accolades won by a University. A consensus had been reached back in early 2008 that a reference to recruiting violations would be "merged," but "mentioned" and "cited" in the Clemson Tigers Football article as in similar articles, but the consensus was obviously not to re-vert the same information in bulk, using multiple citations of the same source, with various socks over the course of 4 years. Please review and compare the user/sock edit histories.

			== Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week) ==
	Sorry for not ], but I needed to reveal patterns on multiple pages.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SpaDeX}} <br />
	(Had difficulty logging into my account / Schedule, family illness may keep me from responding promptly) Apologies. ] (]) 11:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garundam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269842031'''
	:Is this report supposed to be a joke? Diffs from 2-4 years ago? This is clearly a retaliatory action by the IP user reported above by myself who it is now clear is ] using an IP sock to edit war (family illness or some other excuse is always claimed as the reason for this) and remove notable content that is sourced and verifiable from ]. This type of misuse of Misplaced Pages's reporting boards is disruptive behavior of the worst sort. ] (]) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
	::I haven't been using this account to make edits because I have been too busy with r/t things (which is beside the point). It seems upon further review that the only user using multiple accounts in tandum to push the "same content" has been GarnetAndBlack. I just found where one of his sock IP's was blocked again recently for edit warring on these same pages: by ]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> on February 17, 2012. ] (]) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
	:::"Too busy" to type a couple of words into two boxes and click a button? I'm sorry but this is getting absurd to the point of being almost comical. Is anyone else buying this nonsense? ] (]) 04:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' ] <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|70.26.178.93}}

	<!-- 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. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article 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 -->

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	~~Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:~~		https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Garudam&diff=prev&oldid=1270190529

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			Looks like nationalistic indians refusing to compromise and using wiki rules to prevent newcomers making good faith changes
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			] (]) 10:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Frank edit warring behavior, repeatedly inserting same material (without comment) despite its removal by a series of other editors. Continuing after 3rr/ew warning. ] (]) 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
	*5th revert added. Please put this rulebreaker out of business for a meaningfully long time. No other message is getting through. ] (]) 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			: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)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			::Please see . Looks like a troll IP to me, making personal attacks. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nb\|1 week}} ] (]) 15:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Battle of Jamrud}}
	<!-- 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\|Noorullah21}}
	Previous version 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: 21:26, 1 April 2012
	* 2nd revert: 01:11, 2 April 2012
	* 3rd revert: 11:00, 2 April 2012
	* 4th revert: 22:59, 2 April 2012 (Sockpuppet Investigation result)

			'''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:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff2\|1270110872\|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			# {{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:'''
	<!-- 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 -->
			# {{diff2\|1269985195\|10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{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~~> <br /~~>		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	I know this is stale, but I wanted it on record that WLU, who reported me for making four reverts in 41 hours himself made four reverts in 25 hours 33 minutes in the same conflict. He also used a sockpuppet to do so. I didn't file this report before, since I was waiting for confirmation from SPI.

			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)
	WLU wrote " Of course, were there any substance in his "thousands of words" he wouldn't have felt the need to resort to sockpuppetry and personal attacks. He hadn't shown any interest in this article (or several others he's fought me at) before his started over a year ago. I think it is best that he leave me and the several articles he hounded me to alone. ] (]) 14:45, 19 April 2012 (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.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			:“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”


	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Attack on Prekaz}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|24.85.145.1}}

			: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)
	<!-- 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. -->
			::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) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|StopAntisemitism}} <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\|2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- 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. -->
	~~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:

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

	IP is evidently sock of some other user, so block is highly in place. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 21:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I gave the 3RR warning (after the 5th revert though). The other IP was (I didn't hand out a warning to that one, because it has been causing other edit-wars). Would be prudent if it doesn't revert after the warning, but if does please block immediately.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Brooklyn Bridge}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|70.26.178.93}}

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Previous version reverted to:
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Next Danish general election }} <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 -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Thomediter}}

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

			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.
	<!-- 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> User violating 3RR, adding OR without explanation, multiple editors have reverted.<br />

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			*], 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)
	] (]) 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|FC ~~Seoul~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Conor Benn}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Footwiks~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GiggaHigga127}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
	<!-- 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. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
			# – same
			# – same
			# – same
			# – same, now with PA

			'''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. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article 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 -->

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			User: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.
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			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)
	<u>Comments:</u> <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)
			::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Based on , it could be ] as well. ] (]) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	Extended complex edit warring by ]. Mislabels edits as vandalism. Reverts against consensus and against editors who have provided AND linked policies and guidelines as to their justification for their changes. ] by ] going back to .] (]) 23:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Probability and statistics}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Logoshimpo}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867) }} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Nmate}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* 1st set:
	* 2nd set:
	* 3rd set:
	* 4th set:
	* 5th set:

			Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , .
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	] doesnt assume a good faith and he is often involved in edit warring and national disputes. He is also placed under editing restriction at ]. Its question if his behavior is an apport for Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 07:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
			#

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Nmate is also deleting ] 's talk page comments without his permission, thus breaking ]:
			# {{diff2\|1270081668\|20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Nmate does not adhere to ] ("Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.") and most of his activity is represented by reverts and reports.
			The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . ] (]) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	He is also ] by deliberately using ] in ] to thwart the aims of Misplaced Pages. He speculates the fact that anyone is free to ] any edits made in defiance of a ban.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Nachos}}
	He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users, like uncontroversial page moves . Both of these moves were later re-instated by administrators:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Rauzoi}}
	Relevant for Nmate's ] is his request for '''deletion''' of a '''cooperation''' board: ] (]) 08:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

	:''"He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users"'' means that he is a self-confessed sockpuppet of ], therefore; my reverts do not fall under the 3RR rule.--] (]) 10:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::No, you only broke the the "rule of common sense". Deleting parts of a civilized talk page discussion is far from being constructive. Koertefa knew very well who I am: , but unlike you he is preocupated in improving articles, not in annihilating other users. To quote from him: ] (]) 10:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

	::: The rule is that ALL edits made by socks of a banned user may be reverted on sight, and 3RR/1RR will not apply in those cases. That's why we enact bans - heck, we can delete their article on site, even if they're useful. Common sense is that a banned user is supposed to be smart enough to know that banned means banned; period (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 11:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	::::Yes, edits of banned users ''may'' be reverted even if they are helpful (it is not against the formal rules). But unfortunately this is not in the interest of the readers, who need articles of a quality as high as possible. So according to you it is against commons sense that I improved some articles? ] (]) 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270462611\|17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754 vandalized by Crasias"
	:::::Note that I am not placed under 1RR. I was under editing-restriction in 2008, which means that any administrator may imposed upon me what they see fit under Digwurren, but there is no such recent case, however.--] (]) 11:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)::::::I think Nmate should wait for official results of investigation. 2 sockpuppets of Iaaasi were marked as my socks (I had lessons in that time at university, so it was a surprise: ). Its not normal reactions from him, it looks like an obsession. He found a lot of sock puppets, I agree , but he also scandalized an innocent people with his fast reactions. I am asking, is this normal, civilized behavior? --] (]) 11:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270457231\|diff=1270459938\|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:::::::I will report you to the Arbitration Comitee if I have time, Samofi.--] (]) 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
			## {{diff2\|1270459303\|17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	::::::::Do you threaten me? Look, your reactions are not normal according to ]. You broken a lot of rules of principles of Misplaced Pages etiquette. I dont see that he would be confirmed sock of Iaaasi . You continue with your batlleground mentality . You could just a wait for confirmation that he is a sock puppet. --] (]) 11:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
			## {{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:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270460344\|17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>

			Frequently removing and replacing sourced content that identifies Nachos as "Tex-Mex" rather than "Mexican" ] (]) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:22, 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)

You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:07, 19 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:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Garudam&diff=prev&oldid=1270190529

Comments:

Looks like nationalistic indians refusing to compromise and using wiki rules to prevent newcomers making good faith changes 185.40.61.47 (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You have not linked to efforts to make a compromise or even warned other editors that they might be edit warring. "Nationalistic Indians" is a very serious thing to say and I suggest that you focus on the content and less about the nationality of the editors involved. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

It seems that you yourself were also edit warring, except your the one who’s adding disputed content so per ONUS, you were never supposed to revert him to begin with. You need to wait until talk page discussions conclude and gain consensus. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

A. The instance you pointed out was an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..)

B. When the individual hasn't concluded their WP:3O, you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind you WP:3O is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until a Consensus can be made. The burden of proof is on you for WP:ONUS (you also kept readding a non WP:RS source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed out WP:3O as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory. Noorullah (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I also told said where per WP:ONUS, it's per them to seek Consensus. Noorullah (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted my edit as of now per the edit summary. (the last edit prior to that is the person working on our WP:3PO. Noorullah (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems like WP:TAGTEAM, but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one quoting: I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans" which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes. Indo-Greek 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? the WP:3O is being discussed.

You've completely ignored this.

Scroll down! (on the talk page). Noorullah (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did.

@Someguywhosbored has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless. Noorullah (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Both of us did No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR, don't confuse it with WP:4RR. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT. Indo-Greek 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

What?

"No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former.

"Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page.

"The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT." - Are you insinuating @Someguywhosbored is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about.

A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.)

B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?)

C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?

I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page? "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."

Flinging around accusations of Meatpuppetry clearly breaches Civility. Noorullah (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You also did revert it three times.. Shown here:

(First time)

(Second time)

(Third Time) Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. Indo-Greek 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?)

I didn't revert four times to break 3RR. Where are the diffs of me reverting you four times? Noorullah (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4 reported by User:CipherRephic (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

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:

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ 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)

Based on this, it could be meaty as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Logoshimpo reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: )

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:

Gentle warning on article talk-page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"

Comments: The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . JBL (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Rauzoi reported by User:Crasias (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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)

Categories: