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 21:47, 19 June 2012 editFrotz (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,435 editsm whoops← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:52, 19 January 2025 edit undoEvergreenFir (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,713 edits Restored revision 1270327440 by Drmies (talk): MalformedTags: Twinkle Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]{{User:MiszaBot/config
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			<!--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
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~187~~		\|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><!--<?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. -->

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|94.187.8.87}}
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Son of man}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\| 74.111.4.108}}
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff 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. -->

	~~Previous~~ ~~version~~ ~~reverted~~ to:		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

			'''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:
	+ another
	* 5th 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 -->
			This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine ] concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ] (]) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|p\|three days}} by {{u\|Randykitty}} ] (]) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{ping\|Daniel Case}} The editor has with no participation in the Talk page discussion using a ]. Now will you please fulfill my request that they be blocked instead of just temporarily preventing all editors from editing the article? ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I wasn't the one who protected it, as noted. But I'll look into it. ] (]) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::They shan't trouble you again. At least not on that article. ] (]) 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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



			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations}}
	<!-- 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 />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|46.217.186.173}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	--<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">]</sub> 21:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 00:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|X-ray computed tomography‎}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1269599524\|13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|79.182.215.205}}
			# {{diff2\|1269595946\|12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269506198\|01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269480789\|22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269469278\|21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) FASISM TOWARDS MACEDONIA"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# {{diff2\|1269596351\|12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Persistent edit warring. ] (]) 13:08, 15 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 -->
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] ] 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739)}}
	<!-- 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\|Asafviki}}
	See extensive discussion on talk page as well as

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# {{diff2\|1269613200\|14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
			# {{diff2\|1269609369\|14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
			# {{diff2\|1269569554\|09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	The editor has a serious case of ], as can be seen at the talk page of the article and the ] page. He has shown no indication that he plans to abide by any behavioral or content guideline. ] (]) 02:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269613702\|14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::This is a false complaint, I don't see from that diff how there were three reverts there. There is new text in these diffs, and the revert "(Reverted edits by 79.182.215.205 (talk) identified as spam (HG))" is a revert that an HG bot did by mistake, when I fixed a link, and it thought it was spam, when it wasn't, and so I reverted its stupid automatic revert. Give me a break Yobol.

	::I think that if you check what happened, including in the talk page, you would see that Yobol is editing things he don't understand, and don't try to understand, and without asking for clarification/consensus before he edit.
	::If you are already counting, please count Yobol's deletions, maybe he has 3 reverts. I try to fix the text, and I change the content according to remarks, so these are genuine edits, all Yobol does is delete without asking questions first, and because of errors in his understanding, sometime of simple matters.
	::It seem to me that Yobol effort will result in that the adverse effects of CTs would be underestimated by the readers, which is bad.<p>] (]) 05:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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

			Also LOUT socking with ]. --<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">]--]</sup> 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lewis McGugan}} <br />
			:{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. ] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Joshuaforest}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SmartLynx Airlines Estonia}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TG-article}}
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{diff2\|1269668652\|20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
	Continued ignoration of the guidelines highlighted through the addition/modifcation of career statistics tables for footballers. This extendeds beyond ] and includes ] (on the talk page of which a discussion aimed at resolution was initiated, although the user has ignored the to participate), ] and ]. The user has failed to engage in any kind of discussion and has a history of questionable edits; see for an example. Seems to be a case of ]. The user just can't seem to bear the fact that someone is amending a Nottingam Forest-related article, even though the amendments are improvements and adhere to WP guidelines. It's a shame because he's trying to be constructive adding these tabes, but is not willing to see anyone improve on them. Cheers, ] (]) 17:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269664490\|19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
	:I see the user has now been given a 24h block. ] (]) 17:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1269638908\|17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Europe}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Pass a Method}}

	<!-- 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>
	Previous version reverted to:

			Also edit warring at ], ], ] and ]. User has been told to discuss edits on talk pages on multiple occasions, and seemingly refuses to do so. ] (]) 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			:@] This is not a 3RR violation. I see two reverts. ] ] 20:20, 15 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 -->
			::No it’s not a 3RR violation - but it’s a user that’s consistently edit warring across multiple pages and refusing to engage in talk pages, which is why I believe it still belongs on the edit warring noticeboard.
			::Edit: I’ll get the rest of the diffs here in a sec… I used Twinkle for the original report. ] (]) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269663239\|reversion 1}}, {{diff2\|1269667404\|reversion 2}} (which was following a pertial reinstatement of their already reverted content)
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269638888\|partial reinstatement}} of reverted content, followed by {{diff2\|1269666092\|reinstating}} his reverted edit
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269664088\|reinstating}} their previously reverted content
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269664490\|reinstates}} their reverted edit, then {{diff2\|1269668652\|again partially reinstating}} their reverted edit.
			:::* ] - legitimately and in good faith {{diff2\|1269497042\|alters}} a template, but then after being reverted {{diff2\|1269636269\|doubles down}} and reinstates the edit.
			:::The user has previously been blocked for this exact same behaviour by ], and is nt responding to talk page messages. ] (]) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] (]) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wolf Man (2025 film)}}
	<!-- 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\|190.201.157.28}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Pass a Method has tried to insert content on same-sex marriage into ] in a section labeled "LGBT rights". The material was copy-pasted from ] and he later added his own sources for the content, not used in the original article. He did not give any attribution to the original editors who created the content. Five users have objected to his addition as ] and unsuitable for the article: Mathsci, Maunus, Chipmunkdavis, Bluehairedlawyer and MadGeographer. He continues to restore the content and to disrupt the article in ways that are not an improvement for the reader. No other editors agree that his proposed content, purely on single-sex marriage, is appropriate, but he is edit-warring against this consensus. Usually on ], amongst the 200 most read pages on wikipedia and as such an anodyne and neutral article, disruption has been caused by issues related to Eastern Europe. This is disruption of a different kind which is also wasting volunteer time. (The fourth reversion was about trivia in the lede concerning largest and smallest countries.)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	{{userlink\|Pass a Method}} has also been involved in similar edit warring on ] also related to the topic of same-sex marriage. (More details will be added later.) ] (]) 05:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269704227\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269703995\|23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269673354\|20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Reception */"
			# {{diff2\|1269640157\|17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:'''On ]:''' Original insertion: First reversion: + new insertion on same topic: Second reversion of all this new content: Third reversion of previously added material: Fourth reversion: The content in this case was about "LGBT" (his subsection heading)/same-sex marriage plus statements added to the lede about which countries in Africa are the largest in area and population. ] (]) 05:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269704229\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
	::Other edits of Pass a Method, placing warning templates or comments on user talk pages when his edits were reverted, indicate a ] approach. He also commented on edits to ] on ] which is not very helpful for those watching ]. ] (]) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
	::: '''Reply''' The fourth revert is about Russia so it is completely different to the first three reverts. The first revert was me adding a source (because of a request). Additionally i conceded to the current version long ago, so im not sure why Mathsci is re-opening a resolved issue. ] ] 09:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
	::::Reverts are counted irrespective of the content being reverted. PassaMethod was evidently edit-warring. Above is the first time that he has explicitly stated that he now accepts that his edits were against consensus (presumably he means on both articles). ] (]) 09:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
	::::: Yes i do mean on both articles about lgbt. But my last two edits on Africa had to do African demographics in the lede (See , ). ] ] 10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: protected) ==
			# No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Occupation of the Baltic states}} <br />
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Igny}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for a month) ==
	Repeatedly making the same edit - which is to add a POV tag to the article.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Until Dawn (film)}}
	* Revision as of 23:13, 11 June 2012
	* Revision as of 01:23, 17 June 2012
	* Revision as of 12:53, 17 June 2012
	* Revision as of 13:31, 17 June 2012
	* Revision as of 00:01, 19 June 2012
	* Revision as of 00:42, 19 June 2012

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562}}
	In fairness to Igny, he/she has also participated in discussion of the issues on ] and on ]. According to ] posting on 20:07, 12 June 2012, ] has just come off off a six month topic ban.] (]) 06:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
	:Usually joining an edit war is not part of the procedure to report an edit war. Just so you know... (Igny (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC))
	===comment===

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	: The Misplaced Pages's policy ] linked from the tag says:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	''That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.''
			# {{diff2\|1269723705\|01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	''To indicate that the neutrality of an article is disputed, insert {{POV}} at the top of the article to display:''
			# {{diff2\|1269722106\|01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269715862\|00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269684805\|diff=1269714293\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269714124\|00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Enough with the vandalism already"
			## {{diff2\|1269714293\|00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	User Igny made his edits in full compliance with Misplaced Pages's rules as there are currently three users who dispute the article's neutrality. Conversely, removal of the tag by the opposing team is a breach of the rule. And following from what is cited above, any user has right to insert this tag once he/she disagrees with the content. There is no need for consensus for this tag because it is designed specifically to indicate that there is no consensus.--] (]) 09:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269716711\|00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1269716853\|00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* The issues are more serious than just plain edit warring, there is an open AE case . --] (]) 10:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269719613\|01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* We edit by consensus */ new section"

	'''~~Update~~'''		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
			I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...

			Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: ].
	The issue has been already addressed, the article is protected --] (]) 11:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

			The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: ]
	:Nope - and Igny's "edit war" now encompasses 38 insertions of the same tag (or moving the article) in the past - which means even the 3RR "bright line" does not apply - this is a near-record edit war on his part. Cheers. (noting your extensive edit history). ] (]) 11:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
	::Does not the tag say it should not be removed?--] (]) 11:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

			Regards, — ] ] 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::] is the operative policy here - I can put "do not remove" on any edit I wish but the pov-tag has no more power than did King Canute. I am ''not'' "Latvian." Cheers. ] (]) 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
	:~~:::No, the tag is designed~~ for ~~the~~ ~~cases~~ ~~when~~ ~~there is no consensus at least as indicated in~~ ~~].--~~] (]) 12:11, 19 ~~June~~ ~~2012~~ (UTC)		:{{AN3\|p}} for one month by {{noping\|ToBeFree}} ] (]) 21:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{an3\|p\|1 month\|by=Bwilkins}} Remaining matters can be handled at the currently open AE thread. ] (]) 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporter blocked 2 weeks) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Eurabia~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kajari}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Altetendekrabbe~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Adrikshit}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	On April 24, 2012 an ] added the tag <nowiki>{{Islamophobia}}</nowiki> to ] without mentioning it first or attempting to establish a consensus . This was quickly reverted. Subsequently Altetendekrabbe has been editwarring to keep this tag and eliminate the long-standing tag of <nowiki>{{Criticism of Islam sidebar}}</nowiki>. His subsequent edits he introduced and continues to introduce are contentious, violate WP:POV, and are typically quickly reverted. He has been sanctioned already for strings of like edits and nothing good seems to have come of it.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Examples:
			#
			#
			#
			#

	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring 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 -->
	Here is the talkpage thread I started to get to the bottom of this string of reverts: ]. I initially suggested replacing <nowiki>{{Islamophobia}}</nowiki> with <nowiki>{{Islamism}}</nowiki> and then backed off to having no sidebar. I subsequently discovered that Altetendekrabbe has been involved in repeated attempts to change the longstanding sidebar of <nowiki>{{Criticism of Islam sidebar}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{Islamophobia}}</nowiki>

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	] (]) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			{{AN3\|nb\|two weeks}} by {{noping\|ToBeFree}} ] (]) 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I have also added a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. ] (]) 21:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And Aman has been alerted to contentious topics, too. ] (]) 21:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result:indefinitely partially blocked) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Killing_of_Wong_Chik_Yeok}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269356091\|diff=1269786107\|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269785771\|11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Posting the photo of a deceased tagged to such an intense tragic story would greatly hurt the family. Imagine this is your daughter mug shot, killed by her husband, with her summarised tragic story plastered for the world to see. All I did was to remove her picture and you youngsters spare no effort in reverting it."
			## {{diff2\|1269786107\|11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "This man, worked hard his whole life, faithful his entire life, fell ill to a mental illness, does not deserve to have his face tagged to a summarised wrong version of the story for the entire world to see. Imagine this is your brother, who spent his old age in agony. Are you sure this is the right thing to do? What good does it serve to publish pictures of an old case other than to serve what grandiose ideology?"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


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


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

			User appears to be slow edit warring at this point. JBW has already banned them once for edit warring. ] (]) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I would also point out that before their first ban for edit warring @] was making comments with a seeming intent to intimidate users that reverted his edits. ] (]) 19:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			:: {{u\|Isabelle Belato}} has indefinitely partially blocked Janessian from the ] article. ] (]) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours from editing articles) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Capitalism}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Free market}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Extreme poverty}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Distribution of wealth}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Poverty reduction}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Trickle-down economics}} <br />

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

			POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there.

			'''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:'''

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

			This is an ad hominem attack: "POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there." I would appreciate if Avatar317 would please stop with the ad hominem attacks in the edit summaries. They violate ].

			I stand by most of my insertions of the chart:
			*]

			I agree with some of Avatar317's removals. Other removals seemed to be stalking to see where I added the chart. The regular editors of articles are capable of making up their own minds.

			I addressed Avatar317's points in my edit summaries. But he sometimes did not address my points in his 2nd reversions.

			I would appreciate not being stalked. And we can always go to the talk page for the articles he regularly edits. --] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Every article I reverted you on was on my Watchlist. I did not (yet) go through the list of your edits other than to count them.
			:You've been around long enough that you should know that per ] "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."; so you COULD have started discussions rather than continuing to push that content into all those articles.
			:Which article did you NOT revert my removal? I don't see even one. ---''']]''' 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::]. And in ] you changed the location which I don't mind.
			::And you '''could''' have addressed my points in your 2nd edit summary instead of doing a kneejerk 2nd reversion in some cases without directly addressing my points. That would save some time before going to the talk page.
			::And please see ] if you are thinking of following me around to the other articles where the chart is posted. --] (]) 00:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::All of your "points" are Original Research ] based on your BELIEF that the chart is relevant to the 36 articles you added it to. Again: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
			:::And if you post the same content into many articles, I will revert those which are inappropriate the same way I would go over a new editor's edits who adds spam to many articles. In case you can't tell, I have an interest in Economics, and keeping extraneous content out of Misplaced Pages. Hounding would be following you to articles OTHER than ones I have an interest in. ---''']]''' 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} from editing articles. ] applies. ] (]) 01:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#



			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ;

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

			<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) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Timur}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{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:'''
			# {{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:'''
			# {{diff2\|1269994020\|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping"

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

			== Edit-warring IP ==

			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.
			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)

			:{{AN3\|m}} ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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)}} ""
			# {{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) ==


			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks\|Astius}}, {{pagelinks\|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks\|Angelina of Serbia}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|187.36.171.230}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>]



			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' -

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

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

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

			It seems like the user indeed adds suitable content for content that relates to Serbia. Therefore, a topic ban for Kosovo and Albania would be convenient. I don't know if that's possible here, though. ] (]) 23:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

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

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

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

			: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.
			:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week) ==

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

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269957055
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=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




			'''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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />fe gs
			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)
			::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\|Battle of Jamrud}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Noorullah21}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ds fewdv

			'''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:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270110872\|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1270113286\|00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1270205537\|12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1269985195\|10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1270115828\|00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270117437\|00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270123153\|01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270124950\|01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270128846\|01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270130305\|02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270131478\|02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270133699\|02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"

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

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

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|StopAntisemitism}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
			w dfedfe
			'''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:'''

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

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

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

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

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

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

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

			'''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:''' ]

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			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)
			: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)

Latest revision as of 05:52, 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:46.217.186.173 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Page protected)

User being reported: 46.217.186.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269596382 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269506258 by MacaroniPizzaHotDog (talk)"
01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269482182 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269469326 by JacktheBrown (talk)"
21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269452155 by Fneskljvnl (talk) FASISM TOWARDS MACEDONIA"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Persistent edit warring. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Asafviki reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also LOUT socking with this edit. --Seawolf35 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:TG-article reported by User:Danners430 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: TG-article (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"
19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Boeing 737 MAX."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also edit warring at Batik Air, Boeing 737 MAX, Singapore Airlines Flight 321 and Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268. User has been told to discuss edits on talk pages on multiple occasions, and seemingly refuses to do so. Danners430 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430 This is not a 3RR violation. I see two reverts. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No it’s not a 3RR violation - but it’s a user that’s consistently edit warring across multiple pages and refusing to engage in talk pages, which is why I believe it still belongs on the edit warring noticeboard.

Edit: I’ll get the rest of the diffs here in a sec… I used Twinkle for the original report. Danners430 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 321 - reversion 1, reversion 2 (which was following a pertial reinstatement of their already reverted content)
Batik Air - partial reinstatement of reverted content, followed by reinstating his reverted edit
Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268 - reinstating their previously reverted content
SmartLynx Airlines Estonia - reinstates their reverted edit, then again partially reinstating their reverted edit.
Boeing 737 MAX - legitimately and in good faith alters a template, but then after being reverted doubles down and reinstates the edit.

The user has previously been blocked for this exact same behaviour by User:Canterbury_Tail, and is nt responding to talk page messages. Danners430 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:190.201.157.28 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked 24h)

User being reported: 190.201.157.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""
23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""
20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wolf Man (2025 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page here

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Page protected for a month)

User being reported: 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) ""
01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) ""
00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269714333 by MikeAllen (talk) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269684805 by MikeAllen (talk) Enough with the vandalism already"
2. 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269684573 by MikeAllen (talk) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Until Dawn (film)."
00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Until Dawn (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "/* We edit by consensus */ new section"

Comments: I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...

Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: diff on 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC).

The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: diff

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected for one month by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Adrikshit reported by User:Aman8188 (Result: Reporter 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:
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of two weeks by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have also added a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And Aman has been alerted to contentious topics, too. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Janessian reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result:indefinitely partially blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Posting the photo of a deceased tagged to such an intense tragic story would greatly hurt the family. Imagine this is your daughter mug shot, killed by her husband, with her summarised tragic story plastered for the world to see. All I did was to remove her picture and you youngsters spare no effort in reverting it."
2. 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "This man, worked hard his whole life, faithful his entire life, fell ill to a mental illness, does not deserve to have his face tagged to a summarised wrong version of the story for the entire world to see. Imagine this is your brother, who spent his old age in agony. Are you sure this is the right thing to do? What good does it serve to publish pictures of an old case other than to serve what grandiose ideology?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be slow edit warring at this point. JBW has already banned them once for edit warring. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also point out that before their first ban for edit warring @Janessian was making comments with a seeming intent to intimidate users that reverted his edits. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato has indefinitely partially blocked Janessian from the Killing of Wong Chik Yeok article. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: Blocked 24 hours from editing articles)

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

POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there.

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:

This is an ad hominem attack: "POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there." I would appreciate if Avatar317 would please stop with the ad hominem attacks in the edit summaries. They violate WP:NPA.

I stand by most of my insertions of the chart:

Commons:File:US federal minimum wage if it had kept pace with productivity. Also, the real minimum wage.png

I agree with some of Avatar317's removals. Other removals seemed to be stalking to see where I added the chart. The regular editors of articles are capable of making up their own minds.

I addressed Avatar317's points in my edit summaries. But he sometimes did not address my points in his 2nd reversions.

I would appreciate not being stalked. And we can always go to the talk page for the articles he regularly edits. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Every article I reverted you on was on my Watchlist. I did not (yet) go through the list of your edits other than to count them.

You've been around long enough that you should know that per WP:ONUS "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."; so you COULD have started discussions rather than continuing to push that content into all those articles.

Which article did you NOT revert my removal? I don't see even one. ---Avatar317 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Economic liberalization. And in Minimum wage in the United States you changed the location which I don't mind.

And you could have addressed my points in your 2nd edit summary instead of doing a kneejerk 2nd reversion in some cases without directly addressing my points. That would save some time before going to the talk page.

And please see Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding if you are thinking of following me around to the other articles where the chart is posted. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

All of your "points" are Original Research WP:OR based on your BELIEF that the chart is relevant to the 36 articles you added it to. Again: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

And if you post the same content into many articles, I will revert those which are inappropriate the same way I would go over a new editor's edits who adds spam to many articles. In case you can't tell, I have an interest in Economics, and keeping extraneous content out of Misplaced Pages. Hounding would be following you to articles OTHER than ones I have an interest in. ---Avatar317 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours from editing articles. WP:ONUS applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 17 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)

Categories: