Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:37, 28 February 2014 editSpinningspark (talk | contribs)89,216 edits →User:JesseRafe reported by User:Mendaliv (Result: )← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:07, 19 January 2025 edit undoRatnahastin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,902 edits →User:Xuangzadoo reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: ): cmt 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 237 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
|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&#039; 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: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|94.187.8.87}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mount Damavand}} <br />
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Farhoudk}}
#
#
#
#
#


'''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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#


<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)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
:{{AN3|p|three days}} by {{u|Randykitty}} ] (]) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
::{{ping|Daniel Case}} The editor has with no participation in the Talk page discussion using a ]. Now will you please fulfill my request that they be blocked instead of just temporarily preventing all editors from editing the article? ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wasn't the one who protected it, as noted. But I'll look into it. ] (]) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They shan't trouble you again. At least not on that article. ] (]) 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and several subsequent edits


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Aubrey Plaza}} <br />
<u>Comments:</u> <br />Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ibeaa}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted ''after'' a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. ] (])


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
#
#
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Seoul Metropolitan Subway}} <br />
#
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Massyparcer}}
#
#
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
#
Previous version reverted to: #
#
#
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
#
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 -->
<!-- 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:
Yes - ] did attempt to resolve this issue at ].
Note: That I am an interested third-party, not directly involved in this current Edit War.


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
The edit at ] was reverted a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot. The user is gaming the system, especially considering that, , three hours after the third revert, the editor had declared his intent to continue the edit war.
Previous to this edit warring, the account
*] received by an admin a just 5 days into the account existence
*The user received a temporary block for edit warring at ]. (Please see: ).
*The account is a ], dedicated to portray the ] as the world's greatest. See:
Thank you for your attention in this matter. --] (]) 19:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
:{{Comment}} I was about to file a report against this user as well based on IJBall's and BsBsBs's evidence (also as an uninvolved editor). ] (]) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::Well Epicgenius is an involved editor who has just reverted without giving any edit summaries. User:BsBsBs has not attempted to resolve this issue - He only posted inappropriate content on the talk page which were irrelevant to the issue at hand. '''Admin ] has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR on ''', so this is just recycled stuff. Also, I have no interest in portraying anything in any light and simply wish this encyclopedia to reflect the truth. If anything User:BsBsBs could be accused of the same trait if you look at that editor's contributions. ] (]) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::: The only way in which I was involved is in the sense that I was the text's original writer. ] (]) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::::Not true. You are the one who reverted it in the latest revert: ] (]) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::I was reverting to the version beforehand because it had one source. ] (]) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::That source merely introduced Korail and had nothing to do with your claim of right-hand, left-hand track. You quoted Misplaced Pages articles as a source, which you shouldn't be doing as they're considered unreliable. ] (]) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Then how come it was on Korean Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::The Korean Wiki articles you quoted have no sources to begin with. ] (]) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Again, '''admin ] has already punished BsBsBs and me for edit warring to a 1RR on ''', so this is nothing new. ] (]) 12:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, you were ''not'' punished. You were both warned that in future you would both be held to a ] rule. --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait a minute. I'm pretty sure you said "From now on you are one a 1-revert rule" - Which means you didn't just warn but already applied both me and BsBsBs to 1RR. ] (]) 12:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
''Update:'' And now reverted for a 5th time (diff: ).
::Which is outside the 24 hour slot so doesn't even count if you haven't read ]. ] (]) 15:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Single purpose account dedicated to removing relevant and properly sourced content. Their only excuse is: "''guys im gonna be honest idk why im doing this''". ] (]) 17:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It doesn't have to be 24 hours. Even if the reverts are over a year apart, it's still a revert. ] (]) 02:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) *{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 17:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I hope you know that this is about 3RR violations and not about any old reverts. ] (]) 12:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC) *:Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 20:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: I hope '''you''' know that ] certainly ''can'' be about old reverts. For example, if someone tries to make the same edit once a month every month, that's long-term edit-warring and can lead to a block. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 12:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::: I see. Just for your information, the revert he is talking about is about a made after the 4th revert. The fourth one was outside the 24 hour slot, although I suppose close enough for people to claim that I'm "gaming" the rules. User:BsBsBs has kindly resolved this issue by removing Epicgenius' unsourced claims, so I consider this settled at this point. ] (]) 12:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Abbas Babaei}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Timur}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|70.50.217.198}}


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


Previous version reverted to: '''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1270047251|17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{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:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff2|1269972530|09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1269987649|10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#
#


'''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|1269994020|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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


== Edit-warring IP ==
The user; 70.50.217.198 is adding content to the article of ] which is deemed inappropriate for his article. The user is using strong opnion based passages from a book that label Mr. Abbas Babaei as "notorious" and "merciless" the user 70.50.217.198 claims this to be "factual" yet it is extremely objective and opinion based. Mr Abbas Babaei (of whom the article is written about) was killed roughly 25 years ago during the Iran-Iraq war he is considered a hero by many and deeply respected by many. His family is still alive including his wife, sons, and daughter. Such as passage as the one by 70.50.217.198 is not appropriate in the article of someone who has lived in the very recent past. <br/>Additionally the user 70.50.217.198 has acted very impulsively and in an improper manner for a Misplaced Pages editor to do so. He has also added comments that reek of racism or annoyance based on my beliefs. This can be seen on ym talk page where at the end of his post to me he say ALLAHU AKBAER, this comment of his has hurt me and reeks of religious intolerance towards me.<br/>I therefore request the user 70.50.217.198 be blocked from further engaging in Misplaced Pages or its articles.<br/>Thank you, <br/>] (]) 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


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.
:{{nao}} By my lazy counting, Hooperag is at 7RR over a maximum of 48 hours, and the IP is just as bad if not worse. Suggest blocking both and semi-protecting the article for a few weeks, and I will ask the milhist project to opine on the extent to which the book should be used as a source here and/or supports any of the statements made. --] (]) 22:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
::This would be a good time for either party to promise to stop warring. In this way they might be able to avoid a block. Hooperag is trying to restore glorious patriotic verbiage to the article, such as "He is considered as a great martyr within Iran for his unending sacrifices and contributions during the ]." The IP, while removing the inappropriate material, is adding a negative claim about the subject of the article that would require a very good reference ("notorious" and "merciless"). ] (]) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


:{{AN3|m}} ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I have stopped warring, and will not engage in further conflict with the IP address. I have been a Misplaced Pages editor since 2009 and have built up a decent reputation. In fact as of yesterday I stopped warring, and will not do so again in the future. Must I point out though that that IP address was blocked a few days ago for similar behavior and I do caution Misplaced Pages to watch the IP address and recognize that the IP address is behaving aggressively. I agree with Demiurge1000, the article should be semi protected for a few days until things calm down.<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 apologize for aggressive behavior committed by me, and pledge to abide by Misplaced Pages's guidelines from now on'''.
:::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)
] (]) 23:32, 25 February 2014 (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) ==
I'm the IP and I'd like to put Hooperag's sanctimonious contribution in perspective. My addition to the article is by Tom Cooper, one the foremost western (meaning non-biased) experts on the Iran-Iraq air war. The quoted text comes directly from his contribution to the excellent and voluminous Osprey book series: '''''Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat by Tom Cooper & Farzad Bishop, 2004, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, p. 23, ISBN 1 84176 787 5'''''. I'd like to add the the reference to Abbas Babaei in his work is the only one I can find in ANY western (read non-biased) source. Finally, please consult earlier versions of the article and compare them to the text on this fanboy memorial site (http://babaei.shahidblog.com/about/#bio) and you will find it reads exactly and is identical. Hooperag PLAGIARIZED the whole poorly written thing. The only reason it reads in remotely well written English is because I corrected the errors. Of course, your mileage may vary. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{AN3|p}} – One week. Use the talk page to get agreement on the disputed items. If the war resumes after that, blocks are possible. ] (]) 01:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)<br/><br/>
What... do you expect them to issue an arrest warrant for me? It's one thing if you have a problem with my edits, but what's your problem with me?<br/>] (]) 02:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


What about the plagiarism? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><br/><br/>


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks|Astius}}, {{pagelinks|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks|Angelina of Serbia}} <br />
I have submitted a proposal on the articles talk page to resolve the issue, my proposal can be seen in the following link ], I hope the issue is resolved.<br/>] (]) 03:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
'''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>]


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked for 24 hours) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|OMICS Creations}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Movieking007}}


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' -
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' -, but


Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ] and '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


<u>Comments:</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*In addition to the edit-warring, ] is relevant (where oh where is a checkuser??). ] (]) 10:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


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)
Some group of editors doing syndicate editing and redirecting films and movies page ] to Scientific Publishing ]. CU is required and/or investigation required about these people who are representing as experts but behaving as culprits. This is a Preposterous activity at WP. I request sock poppet/conflict of interest investigation on these syndicate editors.] (]) 14:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Please investigate ] (]) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*{{AN3|blocked|24 hours}}. ] &#124; ] 16:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
:*Addendum: now indefblocked for abusing multiple accounts. ] &#124; ] 16:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC).


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of religious slurs}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both warned) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Xuangzadoo}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|High Point University}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ncnative556}}


'''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:'''
# {{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:'''
Essentially the user being reported is repeatedly deleting factual information from a national publication (shown in the links below), and adding substantial promotional and "fawning" (as defined in wiki help pages) material that is not appropriate to a factual article. (The material being added is not so much shown in the links below, but can be seen on the article history in question.)
# {{diff2|1270040704|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
<!-- 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|1270045411|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# on 7 Nov 2013
# on 10 Feb 2014
# on 10 Feb 2014
# on 21 Feb 2014
# on 25 Feb 2014


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
I adjusted the deletions above with these edits and comments:


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
# on 10 Jan 2014
# on 17 Feb 2014
# on 21 Feb 2014
# on 25 Feb 2014


: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)


== Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|SpaDeX}} <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garundam}}
My concerns as to the posts and deletions of Ncnative556 are as I outlined on his/her talk page: there is a repeated process of adding fawning information and deleting less favorable but factual items which has the effect of making the article promotional and biased in favor of the subject, which is outside the scope of a reasonable wiki-style article. Editor has not responded to any requests to discuss, and continues the pattern of deleting critical material while adding fawning detail.


'''Previous version reverted to:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269842031'''
] (]) 23:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Both warned. If ] and ] continue to revert one another without ever using the article talk page both are risking a block. The use of edit summaries is not a substitute for discussion, especially when you're reverting the other party. The steps of ] are open to you. ] (]) 15:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 3 days) ==
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269957055
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=126997dsver sg3309
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269998618
# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1270115743


;Page: {{pagelinks|Oz the Great and Powerful}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|2001:558:6025:32:8103:2990:EE5A:B96C}}


;Previous version reverted to:


;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|597198203|08:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 596452943 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|597199542|09:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 597198989 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|597210797|11:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 597201431 by ] (])"


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|597199663|09:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|597211550|11:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (])"


;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' fefdsvekj evne dv
# {{diff2|597200810|09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Monaural to stereo and eventually surround sound */"


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />fe gs
Repeatedly revert to an old revision of the article which is being discussed. The user also made many unconstructive edits in other articles and ignore warnings (see his/her contributions). ] (]) 12:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
*{{AN3|b|3 days}} All of the IP address's edits are nothing but vandalism. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "]" (]) 14:40, 26 February 2014 (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: ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Battle of Jamrud}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Boris Godunov}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Noorullah21}}
<!-- 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:''' ds fewdv
Previous version reverted to:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|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.."
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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|1270110872|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1270113286|00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{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>
An user, initially under IP:109.245.105.8, then with his real name Boris Godunov entered a huge amount of primary or outdated, predominantly Serbian sources on the talk page of the article Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. They were totally useless or/and biased and this addition was neither logical, nor provoked by action from another user, or helpful to the discussion. I have removed it and advised the User to stop this nonsense, however he began an edit-war and abused me without reason. ] (]) 13:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


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)
This is not noncence or "usefull"!!!, this is valid documents which have role to help someone who wants to wright more about this article! So there is no reason to deleted it based on figure that someone which are from Bulgaria is not satisfied on valid international historical documents , which obviously are not "serbian" as this user whant to say. Thank you. His personal problems with obvious historical facts should not be relevant for enyclopedia.--] (]) 13:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Anyway see his user page! Everyrthing will be obvious by photo there.


: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.”


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


: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)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of A Town Where You Live chapters}}<br/>
::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..)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|210.195.81.131}}
::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) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|StopAntisemitism}} <br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_A_Town_Where_You_Live_chapters&diff=597280415&oldid=594511875
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4}}


'''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. -->
w dfedfe
Diffs of the user's reverts:
'''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 -->
<!-- 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: N/A


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
The user at IP:210.195.81.131 has posted release date for volume 27 without a URL. When I reverted the information multiple times, and replaced it with a proper source, he called me "retarded, dumb or just plain ignorant" and "stubborn" and reverted the information again. This abuse has go to stop. -] (]) 21:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
==List of ''Wagon Train'' episodes (Result: Warned)==
Recently I created the ] page. Afterwards I placed a peer review request on the talk page. One editor, ] added a guest star column to season one only. I do not think the article should have this. I prefer to have the list similar to such Featured lists as '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. Eclecticology sent the following message too me:
:I disagree with your POV that key actors should not be included in episode lists. What has been done in the other articles that you cite is irrelevant to what happens on the Wagon Train. Adding this information is clearly useful since people watching these episodes will certainly be curious about where they have seen a particular actor before. Many of the TV productions from the time period of Wagon Train employed actors that were well known for other roles. Indeed, only one of those that I added had a red link. As for the role of IMDb, your opinion that it is unreliable does not translate broadly into making its information unusable in all circumstances. Some kinds of information on that site, particularly lists of credited cast taken from the presentations themselves, are generally reliable. I expect that you will stop making these "undue" changes to my edits. You do not own the article.


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
No, I do not own the article; neither does Eclecticology. ''Wagon Train'' did indeed have high-profile guest stars but we are talking about a series that ran for eight seasons and aired a total of 285 episodes. I feel that adding this extra column will add too much to an article that is already quite long. Also I feel that guest stars should be added to future articles that would be devoted to one season each (i.e. ], ], etc.). However, each time I undue Eclecticology's changes he (or she) changes it back and adamantly states that his (or her) changes are right and rather brusquely berates me for being rude.


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
I think a third party needs to step in at this point. Can anyone help? ] (]) 22:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
One can always have someone point out just what is and just what is not WP policy but let us look at the fundamental issue.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
::Let us look at the fundamental justification of the reason for exclusion statement about an already existing article being too long. There has been a practice with WP that some articles that are perceived as too long should be broken into sections that better convey information for a particular point or effect. This is most evident with entertainment industry articles. There have been works of literature, songs, etc. that have been adapted into theatricals, then subsequently adapted into plays or movies. Do they all stay within the same article in WP? Of course not. Is information in an article about a particular entertainment production relegated to inclusion in WP within that originating article? Of, course not. Articles grow, split and divide into additional articles that they themselves grow, split and divide. There is a book from which an adaptation is made of a play or movie. If there is so much information about those subjects then it most probably gets divvied into that article which most appropriately should concern that aspect. Some entertainment industry articles are series because that is for what the information of that subject calls. A background actor certainly would be expected to be the subject of an entire article if their work was not sufficient for that purpose. Leave what information you have to a sentence in an article of that production. A noted actor certainly should have their life and career the subject of another article rather than leaving it to the production article. But if you never include information in an article merely because it is perceived as too long, then just where is it that the information will be included so that others are aware that maybe additional work needs to be done with that information? Some subjects in the entertainment industry field have an article on a series, articles on actors and crew, articles on particular projects that emerge through the creative process of a series. Is it a good idea to be put forth that information should be excluded because there is just too much? You say that you are not the owner of the article but do you recognize that by advocating the exclusion of information from the article very well controls what makes it into the article and WP? I am not saying that you are doing this surreptitiously but that is what is happening. WP does not encourage primary research yet it seems that a significant amount of information that we know about the films of the silent era come from those sources compiled by the entertainment industry in order for information to be known about their productions. Where else would besides primary records would this information be known? Only a fraction of that films were produced during the silent era exists and what published information from those sources deemed credible by WP is significantly smaller than what is available for the sound era. '''Wagon Train''' is a much different animal than the series' cited as an example of article content/style. I would venture to say that 99.99% of those people involved in the production of the Wagon Train are dead. The likelihood of publications by and about these people are very fleeting if people are not made aware of just who they are and what they have done.
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
Well, I guess there is always the possibility of developing the article on the Wagon Train totally devoid of any mention of there being a totally different article about the guest actors on the Wagon Train if Eclecticology decides to do so if left out in the cold? But is that treatment beneficial to WP? No one is compelling you to start the compilation of the actors on the Wagon Train whether the actor had lines or not. In fact, the Wagon Train would not be the Wagon Train without it's actors. And for that particular time period in the television industry who was a lead actor or a guest actor, or who was not selected as a lead actor or despite being a popular actor never guest acted on the series very well may show a subtlety about just what behind-the-scenes or personal influences there may or may not have been in that production. Considering the role that the entertainment industry has had on society, many people do not recognize just how nuanced their lives have been shaped. How many people when five years old recognized that the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon was their level of participation in the Cold War? Personally, it was all lost on me every time we as kids were subjected to Borsch for dinner but at least it was countered by those many times when my friend Gary in elementary school would hand over his Baklava as if it were a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--Oh my mom makes it all the time.] (]) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Next Danish general election }} <br />
If your concern is more over how the message was worded then give me a shout and I'll direct you to some of the edit summaries that I have seen that are absolutely horrendous and inappropriate in a community that is voluntary. A quick look at the tables, just for the first season, would certainly show that if any where it would be there that those guest actors should be included. Linda Darnell, McDonald Carey, Dan Blocker etc. these are people on their own are remarkable people within the entertainment industry. Ask any person over the age of 50 who watched soap operas just who is MacDonald Carey and I would drop dead if they did not say that he was the head of the Horton Clan and considered such an icon of that industry that they still use his voice to introduce the show. His character children, character grandchildren and his character great-grandchildren have come and gone and his voice still lives on! If you are upset that the guy added the column only to the first year episode table, what does it take but a few minutes of cut and paste to finish it off. If there is a wiki policy to discourage guest star columns then maybe that policy should be reconsidered so that for those older shows (i.e. pre-1965ish) might have a different significance warranting a policy other than that of other television episodic guest acting appearances and thus dictate a different approach be considered. Hey, buddy. Cut your losses.A1Houseboy 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Thomediter}}
*{{AN3|w}}. {{U|Jimknut}} and {{U|Eclecticology}}, you both reverted three times, although the war is somewhat stale now. You are both '''warned''' that further disruption of the article may result in a block. Jimknut, next time read and follow the instructions on this page on how to file a report here.--] (]) 02:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


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


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.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|FRG}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gandon64}}


'''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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597112965
*], 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) ==
<!-- 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. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597119997&oldid=597112965
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597141351&oldid=597124001
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597161856&oldid=597143181
# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597268430


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <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|GiggaHigga127}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gandon64&oldid=597304823 section "FRG again".
(The ] was since edited, replacing my addition with a warning about me removing others' changes.)


'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
<!-- 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: ] (the only section). Edit summaries have clearly explained reason and quoted detail from ].


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
The substance of this issue is very simple: Gandon64 keeps adding the line below to the FRG article; the initialism "FRG" is not used in any article. This line has been inserted several times in the past, and others have deleted it, sometimes saying that they consider it spam.
* FRG™ - Free Radical Gasification, a multi-patented ] to ] conversion process developed by Responsible Energy Inc.
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}.--] (]) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 h) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Rosen Method Bodywork}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Etolpygo}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
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)
Previous version reverted to:
: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)
<!-- 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. -->
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 -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Previously exceeded 3RR, let it slide.)

<!-- 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 />

*The reported editor is dispute resolution, but has since doing so. I'm the current DRN coordinator and have made an initial evaluation of the filing there and it will likely move forward if the other participants in the dispute choose to join in. I'm neither recommending nor implying any recommendation for any course of action here, just providing an update on the circumstances. Regards, ] (]) 14:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

*The reported editor took this issue to dispute resolution without ever making an effort to discuss on the talk page. Furthermore there are at least four other active editors who have tried to engage with this editor previously without much success. ] (]) 14:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

*User is edit-warring a POV into the article (while also having opened a case at DRN). Has also filed a specious (IMO) complaint against me below. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 15:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

*{{AN3|blocked|48 hours}}. There's a little extra there, because of the frivolous retaliatory filing below. ] &#124; ] 16:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Samsung Galaxy S5}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|GadgetsGuy}} {{userlinks|GalaxyOptimus}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|597322071|03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|597321884|03:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "logo fix, image removal due to questionable license"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|597322766|03:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Using multiple accounts on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|597322900|03:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"


;<u>Comments:</u>

Only two reverts are listed, as the third is done under the username {{user|GalaxyOptimus}} (which he had, according to his talk page, changed from for violating the username policy). He constantly removes the image from the article, arguing that we can't use it under fair use because the source listed allegedly did not have rights to the image.

He is also randomly tagging and removing other images from a Samsung Belgium Flickr profile which he thinks is flickrwashing based off a undisclosed "review", and literally removed an obviously user-created image for another Samsung article (as in, I don't think Samsung tablets ship with ] by default) and requested OTRS. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 04:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:Here are some of Samsung Belgium's deleted images , , and . So basically its Vipersnake that is causing an edit war. Plus removal of the cyanogen mod on the screen must be done as this should have a seperate license just as the touchwiz and stock ui does. Plus i am not using multiple accounts as I have renamed my account, there seems to be a problem though with integration into the new one. ] (]) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
::CyanogenMod ''is'' stock Android, and its open source. But still, in the case of the S5 page, that's a ''fair use image'' either way. It does not matter whether the source listed had "authorization". <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 04:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:::But according to OTRS rules, a user must prove that the image if licensed to himself must be proven by submitting the requirements. Plus what is your grudge against OTRS ticketing? If the image is his in the first place and the OTRS reviewer has proven it, then it would be restored. Like what I have said, i just nominated it and not deleted it as i am not an admin so the admin that deleted it may have deemed my observation right, Right? ] (]) 04:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
:::::But the problem is that clearly its not a legitimate free-use. Basically your are just arguing that it is of free use just because it was unnoticed for a long time. There have been uploads before that has been licensed the same way as these images originally from samsung are and they are alll deleted as they are not allowed under the fair use license. It is even stated that ''"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"'' but there could be one in which a user could capture for himself the device (screen-off) and license it for free use or grab an author captured image on a article regarding the wiki article as long as it is licensed for free use by the original uploader on the source page. So to solve such, an review could deem it proper or not. ] (]) 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
::::::This phone '''isn't even out yet''' and has only been presented at an event open to accredited press. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 05:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
*Speedy deletion is properly contested. Open a discussion at ] to properly vet the deletion question—and quit editing warring with the back and forth reverts.—] (]) 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

:@John I am instead will be putting the s5 image on the <span class="plainlinks"></span>.] (])
::I understand. For what it is worth I do not believe the image qualifies under fair use because a free image can easily be obtained. Nevertheless, there is nothing here that so clearly resembles vandalism to allow for an exemption of 3RR. Therefor, it is incumbent on both editors to resolve this matter through alternative means of dispute resolution. The best recourse will prevail in the end.—] (]) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
*I've added a link to the discussion GadgetsGuy mentioned above. It shows that both users are proceeding in good faith to resolve this matter as colleagues; in the manner that best serves Misplaced Pages interests. The mini edit war was not a deliberate act of disruption by either user, the disruption was of no consequence and minimal in duration, and they were both amenable to wp:dr suggestions as soon as they were offered. In this light, I believe this thread can be closed without action. I hope a neutral administrator will demonstrate concurrence by closing this matter as resolved.—] (]) 16:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{pagelinks|Breadsall Priory}}
* User reported: {{userlinks|Rushton2010}}


I made some minor changes on the 15th October 2013‎ to the ] article, which were reverted by Rushton2010 on the 16th October 2013‎, on the grounds that my changes had "seriously distorted the information to the point of making it incorrect."

He nowhere pointed out what information was seriously distorted, and has used the same excuse to revert each and every one of the changes I have made, no less that 10 times now. Indeed as day follows night you can be sure that if I make a change he will revert it.

I told myself that if Rushton2010 reverted my changes more than 10 times I would (reluctantly) draw the attention of this noticeboard to his activities. My impression is that he has "ownership issues", and on those grounds reverts each and every change by me. At no point did he feel the need to correct any mistakes (if indeed there are any mistakes) he just reverts the whole text, each and every time I have made any changes, and this has gone on now for a period of several months.

;<u>Comments:</u>

In summary Rushodon2010 reverted my changes on the 26th February 2014, the 24th February 2014‎, the 12th February 2014‎, the 8th February 2014, the 5th February 2014, the 4th February 2014, the 3rd February 2014, the 29th January 2014, the 5th January 2014, and the 16th October 2013.

This not only violates the three reverts rule, it seems contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
<br>I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here, but as the page is one of little interest probably only local interest given it averages only 10-20 hits a day; of which some/most will be us anyway and the user involved as shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism and they have shown no signs of wanting to discuss -having on 10 occasions now reverted- rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization.
<br>The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
<br>Some are more issues of wikipedia procedure - for example the removal of 8 categories:
*Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
*Monasteries in Derbyshire
*History of Derbyshire
*Marriott International
*Augustinian monasteries in England
*13th-century establishments in England
*Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
*1536 disestablishments in England
-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries. There is also the repeated removal of "Citation Needed" tags, and the "Ref Improve" Hatnote - all without the issues they highlighted having being rectified.
<br>Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice -ditto why I thought he was removing the tags before they were rectified)</small>. It's Breadsall Priory.... Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both.
<br>Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more.

I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved.
<br>--] (]) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


"The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu."

Give a single example in the current text where that is true. If you can find a single example change it. You know full well that you have simply engaged in wholesale reversion. You know that you are being disingenuous. I am happy to make the article as accurate as possible.

"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here"

Again you are being disingenuous. The reason why you did not come here is because you know that you have engaged in wholesale reversion, each and every time, for many months. Not something to be proud of, and not something to which you wanted to draw any attention.

"the user involved has shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism"

Again, you know that to be completely untrue, as anybody who looks at the article can see for themselves. If there was a specific issue you should have addressed it, but you didn't, you just engaged in wholesale reversion. Again you are being very disingenuous.

"rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization."

Ah a little bit of truth mixed in with the lies about "vandalism".

"for example the removal of 8 categories"

*Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
*Monasteries in Derbyshire
*History of Derbyshire
*Marriott International
*Augustinian monasteries in England
*13th-century establishments in England
*Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
*1536 disestablishments in England
-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries."

I did not remove those categories. Why would I remove those categories? It makes no sense. If they were removed it was obviously accidental, and easily remedied by the editor. He simply demonstrates my point for me.

UPDATE I see that the last version did accidentally omit the last list, but that does not apply to any of the other versions which were changed back by Rushton 2010, which he knows full well, so (yet again) Rushton2010 is being "economical" with the truth.

"Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead, something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice"

Again more deceit. I changed it to miles because that is how it is understood locally. I added Long Eaton because that is a much better known local centre. Long Eaton is much larger than Breadsall. He must surely know that, and so he should be careful about throwing the word "bizarre" around.

"Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both."

Again a little bit of truth, yes it is better with both, that is the point. No mention of the kilometers issue I see. I wonder why?

"Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more."

At last the nub of the issue. All that other stuff (to be brutally frank) he is just making up. This is the only substantive point. He disliked that I changed this sentence. Let us examine the issue. He calls it a gross error. Let us put aside the hyperbole and look at the difference between the formulations. He wants to say that "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon" which is a clumsy sentence. I replaced it with a sentence which reads better. Why the protest? The complete reversions? The refusal to modify that sentence? Because he thought it was important that although Augustinian friars could not own land (which was why it was incorrect to identify them as such) he thought it was important to draw attention to the irrelevant fact that this did not apply to any land upon which the monastery was sited. Now anybody can see that this is irrelevant to the point being made (i.e. which sort of friars were they) but he was not going to discuss the issue, he was a going to revert every single change I ever made, no matter how minor, simply because I changed this sentence in a way that took out this irrelevant point, which he found so important.

"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved."

Your behaviour has been clear all along. It could not have been more clear. You took possession of the article and reverted each and every change (no matter how trivial!) over a period of many months. You have now compounded this behaviour by lying about your actions. Lying about my actions, and all over a single sentence which you could easily have changed back if it mattered to you so much. It is all there for people too see. That is the beauty of Misplaced Pages. If anybody reads the article as it is now in comparison with the original it is clear that the charges of "vandalism" are just lies. All it amounts to is a difference of opinion about whether or not it is important to mention that the monastery owned the land "it stood on". The rest is just Rushton2010 attempting to justify his malice and arrogance.

] (]) 08:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I see that Rushton2010 has just reverted it once more, even while it is being discussed here! That makes a total of 11 reversions! ] (]) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

: You are aware that if you make an ], right? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ] (]) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation, boomerang) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Rosen Method Bodywork}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Alexbrn}}

;<u>Comments:</u>

This is ridiculous. ] has only made two reverts in the last two days, both restoring edits made by a user who ''has'' violated ] ] (]) 15:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

:This notice should boomerang back to Etolpygo. ] (]) 15:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|novio}}. Purely retaliatory filing, compare above. Boomerang: I'll be giving Etolpygo 48 hours above in a minute. ] &#124; ] 16:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Jews}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Rahibsaleem}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
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 -->
<!-- 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> While a relatively new user should be cut a considerable amount of slack, Rahibsaleem has reverted three different editors who removed his addition from the article lede, made personal attacks on the article talk page and in edit summaries ("User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz seems prejudiced against the Arabic language"; "removed malicious edits by Malik Shabazz"), removed warnings from his talk page, then posted them on Malik Shabazz's, including content that plainly had no relevance to MS (, ), and generally shown no willingness to edit collegially ("Malik_Shabazz this is your last warning: admins shall intervene upon the edit warring you started. This edit cannot be deleted." ) ] (]) 20:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)<br />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{an3|b}} – 24 hours for 3RR violation (four reverts at ] on 27 February). ] (]) 20:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Paul T T Easter}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Housefullofcards}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
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 -->
<!-- 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 />
I think that this is likely the same IP editor (]) that had been trying to revert to an unsourced version of the article previously, as ] created an account and began making minor edits about the same time the article was given semi-protection. That IP user was given a warning as well and there is currently an ] underway to see if all of the accounts are related. Here are the IP's edits: , , and here's where I warned the user: . The user has been warned previous to my post on his talk page by ]. While the page reversions have differed slightly, it is still the same unsourced information that they are trying to add. There is an ] for the page where I've also asked that people stop reverting to re-add the information and given various reasons for that. ]] 07:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|b}} – Five days for edit warring. The user was previously blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing on 21 February. The ] article was on 24 February. ] (]) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 h) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Pratibha Patil}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kakadesi}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*Please note that this is a BLP of the recently-retired President of India. The issue of dedicated controversy sections and the nature of what constitutes a controversy etc has been discussed before, eg: ], ], ], ] and ]. There are numerous other examples in the archives and the article was semi'd for a while due to some of these BLP violations. The contributor has been doing similar stuff at ] and, to be honest, seems to be nothing but aggressive wherever they go.

:The article , so the issue is not one of censorship but, as the prior discussions indicate, one of weight, recentism, relevance etc. - ] (]) 10:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

::They've . - ] (]) 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
*{{AN3|blocked| 48 hours}}. Really a pretty short block considering they're edit warring on both ] and ] to introduce non-] compliant material, and considering this frivolous revenge templating. ] &#124; ] 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Götaland}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|JesseRafe}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|597306620|01:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 595754072 by ] (]): . (])"
# {{diff2|597329987|05:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 597306620 by ] (]). (])"
# {{diff2|597551165|18:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 597329987 by JesseRafe: Look at this user's history, he is using CN tags maliciously to push an agenda, look at the Talk Pages, he isn't even consistent in what his claim his, he is harming the integrity of these articles with his..."
# {{diff2|597554520|18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by JesseRafe. (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|597554461|18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Discussion underway at ], but editor seems unwilling to discuss, and has indicated that he will continue to blindly revert. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
:Just to note, I already blocked the editor after he reverted yet again before seeing that he had been reported here. ''']]''' 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:07, 19 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Page: Fadlo R. Khuri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 94.187.8.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:94.187.8.87

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine WP:BLP concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

    Page protected for a period of three days by Randykitty Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Daniel Case: The editor has immediately resumed edit warring with no participation in the Talk page discussion using a different IP address. Now will you please fulfill my request that they be blocked instead of just temporarily preventing all editors from editing the article? ElKevbo (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I wasn't the one who protected it, as noted. But I'll look into it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    They shan't trouble you again. At least not on that article. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Ibeaa reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Aubrey Plaza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ibeaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Soft warning; Second warning

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

    Comments:
    Single purpose account dedicated to removing relevant and properly sourced content. Their only excuse is: "guys im gonna be honest idk why im doing this". Sundayclose (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Page: Timur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
    2. 17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?"
    3. 16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
    4. 11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Discussion: He was born in 1320. Give a source?"
    5. 09:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    6. 09:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
    7. Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
      2. 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    8. 08:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    Edit-warring IP

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

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's an IP that has no will for encyclopedic cooperation. Since when do we need to open discussions with them? I've seen admins blocking IPs by other users just notifying them on their talkpage. And I did provide diffs. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know it seems bureaucratic, but we have that form for a reason. It makes it much easier to review these reports. It shouldn't take you too much time to re-enter it properly. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    And by the way, you can notify the IP about this; they do have a talk page. It seems from the history that although they recently blanked it (which they're allowed to do), others have used it in the past to notify them of things like ... reports here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    1. Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270003652 by Terrainman ([[User talk Sorry, but they don't stand up historically.To claim that stout is a strong version of mild ale is just embarrassing!"
      2. 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269997191 by Terrainman (talk) Irrelevant unless it's properly sourced"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
      1. 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Stout has never been a type of ale, weak sourcing too."
      2. 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Oatmeal stout */Not notable"|warnings=|resolves=
    4. 19:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Haldraper "Warning: Edit warring on Porter (beer)."|pagename=Stout|orig=|comment=See also the reverts at Porter (beer). Haldraper has crossed the 3RR in both cases. soetermans. 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)|uid=Haldraper}}

    User:187.36.171.230 reported by User:AlexBachmann (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Christianity in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Astius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), John Koukouzelis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Angelina of Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 187.36.171.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Page: List of religious slurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270059834 by 25 Cents FC (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
    2. 16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270040967 by Ratnahastin (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
    3. 16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
    4. 01:28 15 January 2025 "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
    5. 11:55, 14 January 2025 11:55 "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
    2. 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Kanglu */ add"

    Comments:

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

    I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
    Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
    Xuangzadoo (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

    Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week)

    Page: SpaDeX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Garundam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269957055
    2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=126997dsver sg3309
    3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269998618
    4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1270115743



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

    Page: Battle of Jamrud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to: ds fewdv

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270112351 by Noorullah21 (talk): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
    2. 00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270108346 by Noorullah21 (talk): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk fd gfds page now to be more clear."
    3. 23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements. 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:

    1. 23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"
    2. 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."
    3. 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Battle of Jamrud."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
    2. 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    3. 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    4. 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    5. 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    6. 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    7. 02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    8. 02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
    9. 02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"

    Comments:

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

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

    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)

    Page: StopAntisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    4. 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:

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

    Page: Next Danish general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thomediter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Page: Conor Benn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: GiggaHigga127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

    It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions Add topic