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

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

Revision as of 00:08, 27 May 2014 editBrews ohare (talk \| contribs)47,831 edits →User:Brews ohare reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: ): Response to FyzixFighter← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:52, 19 January 2025 edit undoEvergreenFir (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,713 edits Restored revision 1270327440 by Drmies (talk): MalformedTags: Twinkle Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{no admin backlog}}
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	<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 = ~~246~~		\|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' 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: Semi-protected ) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|94.187.8.87}}
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Orion (constellation)}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|66.214.143.68}}
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''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:
	#
	# - where he also makes a personal attack
	#
	#
	#

			<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: Page protected) ==
	<!-- 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: None, because this is a long-running IP-hopping sockpuppeteer that {{ping\|Dougweller}} and others have been dealing with for a long, long, time. Honestly, I'm kinda tempted to propose an edit filter. ] (]) 00:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|46.217.186.173}}
	True, but protection has brought him to my talk page to discuss the issue. Part of the problem is that he's reading the Robert Graves bit at ] and also doesn't distinguish between solar hero and sun god, something which I've explained on my talk page. I'll be doing an edit this weekend clarifying it. ] (]) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:He's just responded to my edit on my talk page reasonably and adds that he is not IP hopping but switching between iPhone and laptop according to connectivity. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{AN3\|protected}} I've semi-protected, there is now a discussion at the article's talk page. ] (]) 09:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269599524\|13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269595946\|12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269506198\|01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269480789\|22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269469278\|21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) FASISM TOWARDS MACEDONIA"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked+) ==
			# {{diff2\|1269596351\|12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Herbalism}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|69.123.195.235}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Persistent edit warring. ] (]) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] ] 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	# {{diff\|oldid=609882467\|diff=609883636\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC) to 00:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|609882814\|00:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|609882995\|00:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|609883198\|00:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Modern herbal medicine */"
	## {{diff2\|609883479\|00:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Prevalence of use */"
	## {{diff2\|609883524\|00:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* == */"
	## {{diff2\|609883636\|00:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Clinical tests */"
	# {{diff2\|609885304\|01:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff\|oldid=609886410\|diff=609886793\|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC) to 01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|609886664\|01:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* History */ splelling mistake"
	## {{diff2\|609886793\|01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Modern herbal medicine */ spelling mistake"
	# {{diff2\|609887400\|01:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# no edit summary
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|609887386\|01:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours) ==
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|609886711\|01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Changes require discussion, must be supported by sources */ new section"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739)}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Asafviki}}
	Note also false edit summaries and prior notice from other editor ] (]) 01:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b}}. I blocked the IP for 48 hours and two weeks for his alter ego, ].--] (]) 01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Gull Lake High School}}
			# {{diff2\|1269613200\|14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Tutelary}}
			# {{diff2\|1269609369\|14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
			# {{diff2\|1269569554\|09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1269613702\|14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:

	# {{diff\|oldid=609892804\|diff=609893962\|label=Consecutive edits made from 02:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) to 02:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|609893156\|02:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): Https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gull_Lake_High_School#Vandalism_Incident. (])"
	## {{diff2\|609893962\|02:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "another source. No reason given for reverts other than 'unencylopedic' which it is not (edited with ])"
	# {{diff2\|609890425\|02:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by John from Idegon: Again. It is inherently notable as it is from a direct link from the official facebook page. Per ] You have not created an edit on the talk nor anything like it. (])"
	# {{diff2\|609888827\|01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted ] edits by ] (]): Nope. Reliable per ] and is notable to the school. (])"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|609892348\|02:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|609892738\|02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* May 2014 */"

			Also LOUT socking with ]. --<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">]--]</sup> 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			:{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. ] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|609893408\|02:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalism incident */ re"
	# {{diff2\|609892540\|02:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Gull Lake High School}} "/* Vandalism incident */ new section"

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	: '''No violation'''. If you look at the last ''revert'', it's simply me adding another source. We're both at three reverts at the moment. ] (]) 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
	: He is at 4. And I am not looking for blood, just for a third party to explain ] and ] to this editor. ] (]) 03:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
	:: '''To the reviewing admin, look at the diffs'''. I have reverted three times, and he three times. The '4th' time he tried to claim is when I added Twitter as a source. I've recently added another reliable source for the content at hand.
	* Additionally, the editor has claimed 'edit warring' when he himself reverted twice after claiming that I was edit warring.
	* The editor has combative comments about "How he's been here longer than me" and that "I called him a vandal" and "That I'm wrong" https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATutelary&diff=609892836&oldid=609892348
	* https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AGull_Lake_High_School&diff=609893408&oldid=609892540
	Do not look at it at face value. Look at the page, investigate, look specifically at how many each reverted. Adding a source is ''not'' reverting content. We are both at 3 reverts.
	* Additionally, the claims and attempts to solve the content on the talk page (the section was created by me) has only focused on personal attacks against me, rather than the content at hand. ] (]) 03:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SmartLynx Airlines Estonia}}
	Okay, I've sorted things out. First: as for the question of whether the article on the school should mention the vandalism, John is right and Tutelary is wrong. Second: as for the question of how you were both behaving on that talk page, Tutelary was right and John was wrong. Not ''very'' wrong, but John was still crossing the line as Tutelary was attempting to remain peaceful. I have talked with Tutelary about this, and she's conceded my point: ''if'' the school takes permanent action due to the vandalism (installing cameras, switching regular doors for security doors, etc), then ''that'' will be worth mentioning, but ''only'' in terms of what measures were taken, not re: what the vandalism actually was. Tutelary has agreed to not try re-inserting that content in the article, so now we can all move on and edit productively. Isn't that right, Tutelary? ] (]) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
	: Yeah, I've personally considered it and second guessed myself regarding it. A single act of vandalism with no long term effects should not be included in the article, as it isn't important with regards to long term notability. We discussed it civilly on the IRC and have come to the conclusion that I'm wrong about the content. I do concede the edit unless there does show signs of long term notability of the incident. ] (]) 03:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
	::Excuse me, but calling another editor a vandal is never appropriate (unless of course, he or she is). If you were referring to the section title, then I owe you an apology. If you were referring to me, then you owe me one. I concede easily that I may have misunderstood, and if so, I am sorry. Been awake for roughly 30 straight hours now, and I guess I am not seeing things that well. Happy editing to all, and to all a good night. ] (]) 03:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
	::: If you were to link me to a diff where I described you as a 'vandal', then I will apologize. However, I aver that the claim is baseless if there is no diff. I did not call you a vandal. ] (]) 03:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::Wow. I am so sorry. Exactly what I alluded to above is what happened. This would be a great time for me to pull my foot out of my mouth. Please forgive me and thanks for being interested in schools in Michigan. ] (]) 04:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
	And with that, we are at peace and the article is too. Consider my complaint withdrawn. ] (]) 09:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TG-article}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|LucrativeOffer}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# {{diff2\|1269668652\|20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
			# {{diff2\|1269664490\|19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff\|2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar\|prev\|609690070\|16:34, 22 May 2014}} Sourced content blanking.
	# {{diff\|2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar\|prev\|609914125\|07:35, 24 May 2014}} Content biasing by reverting
	# {{diff\|2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar\|prev\|609926408\|10:20, 24 May 2014}} Content biasing by reverting
	# {{diff\|2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar\|prev\|609931389\|11:26, 24 May 2014}}

	<!-- 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:

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

			Also edit warring at ], ], ] and ]. User has been told to discuss edits on talk pages on multiple occasions, and seemingly refuses to do so. ] (]) 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> I found ] as a ], after watching its contribution. He was trying to bias the article according to his opinion. Severel times I warned him, he didn't care about that. Moreover his message in my talk page make me more suspicious about his more than one identity . --''']''' <sup> ]</sup> 11:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)<br />

			:@] This is not a 3RR violation. I see two reverts. ] ] 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is some serious misunderstanding. I never blanked any content, rather expanded the texts. Besides, I reworded the biased tone of the article which had words like extremist, fundamentalist etc. ] and ] don't permit us to write an article with this tone. This is why I edited the article reworded the sentences. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::No it’s not a 3RR violation - but it’s a user that’s consistently edit warring across multiple pages and refusing to engage in talk pages, which is why I believe it still belongs on the edit warring noticeboard.
	:You are quite sensitive about Hefazat-e-islam's Fundamentalist and extremist identity. I am citing few news, which clearly identify them as Fundamentalist and extremist --''']''' <sup> ]</sup> 12:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
			::Edit: I’ll get the rest of the diffs here in a sec… I used Twinkle for the original report. ] (]) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	::This diff indicates that there is a relation between ] and ]. ] was engaged in disruptive editing in ] and ] article and then suddenly ] is created and start editing in ] article. In this diff User:LucrativeOffer mistakenly linked ]'s article. Later he removed that in this diff --''']''' <sup> ]</sup> 12:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269663239\|reversion 1}}, {{diff2\|1269667404\|reversion 2}} (which was following a pertial reinstatement of their already reverted content)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I'm not convinced based on behavioral evidence that LucrativeOffer is the same person as Fugstar. Without that connection, each of you had edit-warred, three reverts apiece.--] (]) 18:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269638888\|partial reinstatement}} of reverted content, followed by {{diff2\|1269666092\|reinstating}} his reverted edit
	:], May be they are not connected, but how did LucrativeOffer know about ]'s article, which he mentioned in my talk page ? Please check his edits, don't you think he is quite experience in wikipedia? Ok, apart from that LucrativeOffer was trying to push ] without any source and he removed those contents, which are presenting negative activities of Hefazat-e-islam. All of them are properly sourced. He didn't attend to any discussion anywhere. But every time I noticed him in his talk page. Moreover as far as I know, preventing vandalism doesn't counted under 3rr.--''']''' <sup> ]</sup> 00:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269664088\|reinstating}} their previously reverted content
	::The Gomes edit is the only thing that struck me as suspicious, and it's not enough for me to block. If you wish, you can file a report at ]. Claiming an exemption for vandalism is always risky unless the edits are egregious. In my view, the exemption doesn't apply here.--] (]) 01:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269664490\|reinstates}} their reverted edit, then {{diff2\|1269668652\|again partially reinstating}} their reverted edit.
	:::Hi ], Currently I am not interested in LucrativeOffer's more than one identity. Please make a decisions about his edit warring attempt. He is continuously removing sourced content and push ] content. Check diffs, which I reported, you will get an idea about his activity.--''']''' <sup> ]</sup> 12:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
			:::* ] - legitimately and in good faith {{diff2\|1269497042\|alters}} a template, but then after being reverted {{diff2\|1269636269\|doubles down}} and reinstates the edit.
	:*FreemesM and LucrativeOffer have both continued to revert the article while this report was open and since ]'s comment above. The word 'violent' in the lead has been steadily going back and forth, always added by FreemesM and always removed by LucrativeOffer. In my opinion both should be blocked. ] (]) 14:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|bb\|48 ~~hours}}.~~ ~~Meh,~~ I ~~didn't~~ ~~even~~ ~~look~~ ~~when~~ I ~~responded~~ to ~~Freemesm's~~ ~~comment~~ on ~~May~~ 25 - so ~~much for~~ ~~good~~ ~~faith~~.--] (]) 15:27, 25 ~~May~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		:::The user has previously been blocked for this exact same behaviour by ], and is nt responding to talk page messages. ] (]) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] (]) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Carlos~~ I of ~~Portugal~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wolf Man (2025 film)}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|186.31.20.28}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|190.201.157.28}}
	<!-- 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\|1269704227\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1269703995\|23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	#
			# {{diff2\|1269673354\|20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Reception */"
	#
			# {{diff2\|1269640157\|17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- 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\|1269704229\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	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 -->
			# No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<u>Comments: </u>186.31.20.28 is conducting a global edit war by inserting a hoax daughter into the article about ].<br />
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}~~.--~~] (]) 20:07, 24 ~~May~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	This user is continually reverting the edits of multiple articles to previous versions, with unsourced claims and erroneous and/or factually incorrect information.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for a month) ==
	Examples:<BR>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Step by Step (New Kids on the Block song)}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Some Kind of Lover}}<BR>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Jody Watley (album)}}<BR>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Real Love (Jody Watley song)}}<BR>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Don't You Want Me (Jody Watley song)}}<BR>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Buffalo Stance}}<BR>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Until Dawn (film)}}
	I have explained to this user why his reverts aren't useful and have cordially requested that he or she cease their disruptive editing, to no avail. In addition, this user has also violated the ] and has resorted to threats. Please assist. ] (]) 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562}}
	'''Some''' corrections/explanantions :
	*This user is one of these typical genre warriors ]. I first noticed a genre was changed at ] and I realized someone decided changing '''without any explanation at all.''' Then I realized this user and I simply decided reverting as much edits as possible, providing an appropriate .
	*Afterwards this user started reverting my edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Real_Love_(Jody_Watley_song)&diff=prev&oldid=609909455 and provided POV-pushing explanations on his/her edits summaries.
	*After reverting this editor with edit summaries like , my edits were reverted again and this user started attacking me on me on talk page, while I was reverting him/her.
	*'''I didn't violate the 3RR'''
	*The Real One Returns accused me of ". '''This is a false accusation against me !''' I didn't log out to revert him/her edits. This is simply a coincidence. I imagine someone else noticed genres were changed and this person decided to revert The Real One Returns.
	**To sum it up :
	#I'm not a vandal
	#I never violated the 3RR
	#I never used any IP adress ] (]) 00:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	:This wound up on my talk page, and I will post publicly to both ] and ]: stop it. Both of you. Now. If you want to change a genre, provide an inline citation from a reliable source that supports the genre you are reverting to or adding. If you continue this widespread edit-war of unsourced material, a block will quickly follow.—](]) 00:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	:: I'd like to note that ] is continuing to vandalize articles by reinstating previous, erroneous versions -- but is not providing any sources to back up listed genre. ], and is seemingly bragging about his reverts at this point; yet he/she insists on name-calling me a 'genre warrior.' - ] (]) 01:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::I'm not vandalizing articles but for sure you're a "genre warrior". Anything else ? Any better remark ? ] (]) 01:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::: I don't know - or care - what a 'genre warrior' is...but I do know what a '''vandal''' and a '''troll''' are, and your activity epitomizes you as both. Trying to lie your way out of your deliberately reckless activity is futile, as it is all on record. Anything else ? Any better remark ? I'll let you ponder while I remind ] that persistent vandalizing of Misplaced Pages articles with reverts of unsourced claims, because you have a chip on your shoulder, is a past time that can and will get you banned. - ] (]) 01:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::I have no idea of what you're talking about but I perfectly know I'm here to contribute and that I'm certainly not a vandal or a troll. See what I did at ] for example (one of the numerous articles where you clearly pushed your own POV, changing "hip house" into "hip hop") : This is one of my typical edits when improving an article. Not '''''' of ridiculous edit. See the difference and keep your disparaging comments for yourself. I'm not here to waste my time with typical troublemakers like you who are trying to bring faithful users down. There are numerous proofs I'm here to contribute : , ] and the kind of edit I just evoked. More than enough to prove my edits are well received. Now go back to your activities and drop your genre-warring behaviour for good. ] (]) 02:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	I never intended beginning this "war". I'm simply fed up to see all these editors who changed genres without providing anything at all in their edit summaries. And ] seems to be one of these typical genre warriors no one is looking at and who will continue changing genres without any explanation '''and''' sources if someone like me doesn't warn him/her. ] (]) 00:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	: Excuse me, but your reverts have been completely groundless. "Genre" and "style" are separate, yet on one article your reverted back to a version that listed 'quiet storm' as a genre -- something that it is not. Apparently [[User:Synthwave.94\|
	Synthwave.94]] happened upon one of my revisions, became disgruntle because he/she saw me as an editor who is a "genre warrior" (whatever that is supposed to me, but whatever it is it is a name-calling insult that needs to stop) and decided to vindictively go through my entire contribution history to revert all the edits that I have made going back months at a time...undoing new revisions that made been made by succeeding editors in the time since...while simultaneously failing to provide any sources to back up what had been stated on the previous version he/she reinstated. This editor ] appears to simply have a vendetta at this point, which has made virtually all of his reverts and revisions unproductive and useless. - ] (]) 01:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	::That's not a vendetta at all. I correctly explained in my edit summaries ''why'' I reverted you. Also changing genres on a good article like "I Was Here" is not very clever. You clearly proved you were here to change genres only. I saw few helpful edits in your contribution history (at least your 500 last contributions). You don't seem ]. If you are unable to edit without providing sources () then someone should block you right now. '''Immediatly''' change your behaviour and stop changing genres if you don't want to have more troubles with me or with someone else. And drawing your own interpretation from Billboard charts is completly stupid : a song which chart on the R&B charts doesn't automatically make this song "R&B". This is obviously your own opinion, which doesn't matter '''at all'''. ] (]) 01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|April Jace}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1269723705\|01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Trackinfo}}
			# {{diff2\|1269722106\|01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269715862\|00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269684805\|diff=1269714293\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269714124\|00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Enough with the vandalism already"
			## {{diff2\|1269714293\|00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# {{diff2\|1269716711\|00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1269716853\|00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1269719613\|01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* We edit by consensus */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#

			Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: ].
	<!-- 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:

			The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: ]
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			Regards, — ] ] 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			:{{AN3\|p}} for one month by {{noping\|ToBeFree}} ] (]) 21:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	] has continued to add a self-published source to the biography of a recently deceased person (]) in violation of ]. Rather than discuss it on the talk page, Trackinfo chose to disrupt the deletion discussion at ] (). After being warned of the 3RR, Trackinfo temporarily ceased reverting. After the discussion on the talk page went nowhere, I suggested that he/she bring the discussion over the disputed source to ]. After waiting 24 hours with no discussion, Trackinfo resumed reverting. --] (]) 02:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	:I have been repeatedly trying to tell the complaining editor that there is no problem with the source. Instead of listening, this user is the one creating the edit war by continuing to remove content, at a critical time when the entire article is nominated for deletion by this same editor. In other words, this editor is deliberately trying to weaken the sourcing on an article they are also trying to remove. That's deliberate, underhanded sabotage in my book. At this editor's suggestion I have taken the source to the ]. This user's contention has received zero comment, other than their own response to my entry. After waiting over 24 hours, I put the content back. In this entire sequence, I believe I have been the reasonable one in using a common source for the subject at hand as a reliable source and retaining the content it and other sources justify. ] (]) 02:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	::Insistent on weakening the article during the debate. This user is now on their fourth removal of this content.
	, , , and they too have previously been counter-warned about edit warring, as if this were necessary ] (]) 03:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	:], the problem here is that ] is correct: you cannot use a blog to source data about a recently-deceased person (actually, you can't use them pretty much anywhere, but the rules for biographies are particularly strict). He has immunity from our 3RR policy for removing them, but you do ''not'' have the same immunity for adding them. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing.—](]) 03:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporter blocked 2 weeks) ==
	*Trackinfo has reverted again, this time adding new sources . However, these sources do not support the content added and appear to be ]. --] (]) 03:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	**Are you kidding me? Seriously? nbclosangeles is about as big a news organization as there is in Los Angeles. They aren't a reliable source? Original research? They reported on the tribute video (shot and posted to youtube months before her death), which I added and was removed by KWW, and how well loved she was by the members of her new team both reported in the story and in the text, calling her "Sunshine." And official meet results showing her participation in championship events? Your misinterpretation of information in order to achieve a result is childish and laughable, but also dangerous to have around a serious information source such as wikipedia. ] (]) 04:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::nbclosangeles stated that she was a member of the team and that they called her "Sunshine", not that she was "known in the Southern California ] community as being a top ]". Using her official meet results to declare her as a top sprinter is ] because it is a ]. --] (]) 05:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Result:''' Trackinfo has been '''warned''' (above) by ] not to keep restoring the masterstrack.com blog source to the article since it doesn't qualify as a valid source about a recently-deceased person under ]. ] (]) 17:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kajari}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Adrikshit}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Saving_Mr._Banks}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|96.253.65.178}}

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

	'''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. -->

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- 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:'''

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''<u>Comments:</u>''' The IP user has reverted the article <s>5</s> <s>'''6'''</s> times today () ('''seven''' , and counting), but the thing has been going on for weeks. <br /> ] (]) 08:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	:P.S. And now is becoming ridiculous. Are there no administrators watching this thread today? I'm going to request protection for the article. ] (]) 14:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

	:Multiple editors have been trying to move the article's Historical Accuracy section from under Plot since it was first created. The reason changes every week, but none of them have been able to support their points after making them, and yet continue to move the section without consensus. You can read the discussion in Talk, and a summary of it at the bottom of the page. ] (]) 10:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	::You have been informed that ] is unacceptable behavior in Misplaced Pages. Even if you don't think that moving the section is justified, forcing it back again and again, against the will of everybody else is forbidden. ] (]) 12:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{yo\|96.253.65.178}} Still there was no reason to edit war. According to my guess, the article might end up with protection. ] (]) 13:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}}. Well past 3RR, obviously aware of policy. I did not see any other editors breaking 3RR. ] ] 15:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* After the 24h period end, the of this user has been to repeat the revert for which he was blocked. ] (]) 18:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

			:I would also point out that before their first ban for edit warring @] was making comments with a seeming intent to intimidate users that reverted his edits. ] (]) 19:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Acupuncture}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Klocek}}

			:: {{u\|Isabelle Belato}} has indefinitely partially blocked Janessian from the ] article. ] (]) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours from editing articles) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Capitalism}} <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Free market}} <br />
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Extreme poverty}} <br />
	#
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Distribution of wealth}} <br />
	#
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Poverty reduction}} <br />
	#
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Trickle-down economics}} <br />
	#
	#
	#

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

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

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			#
	User does not see that their is any concern with them reverting a bunch of other editors. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#

	:Actually, the 5 reverts cited were completely different edits, not the same. Furthermore, several editors suggested and approved the changes on the ] ] (]) 19:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}.--] (]) 19:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Doc McStuffins}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Cvhr}}

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|609982447\|19:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Episodes */"
	# {{diff2\|609984023\|20:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Episodes */"
	# {{diff2\|609984172\|20:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Episodes */"
	# {{diff2\|609985055\|20:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Episodes */"
	# {{diff2\|610099160\|18:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Episodes */"

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|610103631\|18:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|610104669\|18:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on ]. (])"

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

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

			I stand by most of my insertions of the chart:
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			*]

			I agree with some of Avatar317's removals. Other removals seemed to be stalking to see where I added the chart. The regular editors of articles are capable of making up their own minds.
	Also repeated removal of CSD templates on related articles and insertion of copyrighted content from imdb.com. (I assume the user is probably a child unfamiliar with our policies.) - ]] 19:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b}} indefinitely. Too much sneakiness to be attributable to the "innocence" of a child. And, even if a child, too much disruption.--] (]) 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

			I addressed Avatar317's points in my edit summaries. But he sometimes did not address my points in his 2nd reversions.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			I would appreciate not being stalked. And we can always go to the talk page for the articles he regularly edits. --] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2014 Isla Vista killings}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sceptre}}

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Aubrey Plaza}} <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\|Ibeaa}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>Comments:</u>The strange thing is I haven't objected to her view that he committed violence against women. I simply see that he also committed violence against men.<br />
			#
	*{{AN3\|c}} She hasn't reverted since I warned her, though nobody's reverted her since then either. — ] (]) 06:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			#
	((ec)) The edit-warring is about ], a category that with the removal of this page has only 2 entries and no definition of what articles should be in this category, and I can see BLP issues arising both with the category and its addition to this page. Apparently the perpetrator of this killing has written about his hatred of women, but not of men, which would justify the ] category (although I'd still like to see a definition for this one also). Adding the violence against men category appears to be stating that the perpetrator was acting because of his hatred of men (as well), and that doesn't seem to be justified - thus a BLP violation. ] (]) 06:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			#
	*I've replied to Doug's comments on my talk page and also started a section at ] to discuss the category. ], next time editing gets tendentious like this, it will probably be best to go to the talk page first. — ] (]) 07:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			#
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} - Went right back to EWing after she was reverted.  — ] (]) 06:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			#
	*{{AN3\|c}} Now unblocked by blocking editor. ] (]) 16:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			#
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			#
	*{{userlinks\|Sceptre}} still engaged in edit warring by reverting others edits more than three times. Is that acceptable now on wikipedia?--] (]) 18:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

	'''Page:'''
	* {{pagelinks\|God in Buddhism}} <br />
	* {{pagelinks\|Gautama Buddha in Hinduism}} <br />
	* {{pagelinks\|Pratītyasamutpāda}} <br />
	* {{pagelinks\|Buddhism and Hinduism}} <br />

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ;
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Stalkford}}

			'''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:
			Single purpose account dedicated to removing relevant and properly sourced content. Their only excuse is: "''guys im gonna be honest idk why im doing this''". ] (]) 17:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 17:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Left CTOPS notice on talk page. ] (]) 20:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
	<!-- 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:
	* ]:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tamerlanon}}
	<!-- 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:
	* Warnings:
	**
	** ]

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Joshua you reverted my articles. Please go and check the history. I gave the sources which were verifiable and also many articles of Buddhism were quoted from the same website. But you didn't make any unchange. But on this you made and unchange and reported me. I know I haven't done anything wrong. ] (]) 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Comment by JJ: Also abuse of warning-templates . ] -] 15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270047251\|17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
	*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}}.--] (]) 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer blocked) ==
			# {{diff2\|1269972530\|09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
	Stalkford
			# {{diff2\|1269987649\|10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
	'''Page:'''
	* {{pagelinks\|God in Buddhism}} <br />
	* {{pagelinks\|Gautama Buddha in Hinduism}} <br />

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Joshua Jonathan}}
			# {{diff2\|1269994020\|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping"

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

			== Edit-warring IP ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			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.
	<!-- 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. -->
			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)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	* ]:

			:{{AN3\|m}} ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	* ]
			::It's an IP that has no will for encyclopedic cooperation. Since when do we need to open discussions with them? I've seen admins blocking IPs by other users just notifying them on their talkpage. And I did provide diffs. ] (]) 20:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I know it seems bureaucratic, but we have that form for ''a reason''. It makes it much easier to review these reports. It shouldn't take you too much time to re-enter it properly. ] (]) 20:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::And by the way, you ''can'' notify the IP about this; they ''do'' have ]. It seems from the history that although they recently blanked it (which ]), others have used it in the past to notify them of things like ... reports here. ] (]) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{subst:AN3 report\|diffs=# {{diff2\|1270072743\|19:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	This man is continuously engaged in edit war. I gave the sources which were even there in the article. He refused to discuss and when I asked on talk page, he didn't gave any response. * ]
			# {{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 ask him to kindly peacefully discuss rather than just showing his dictatorship on all Buddhism articles.
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	*{{AN3\|nv}}. Filer blocked 72 hours. See above report.--] (]) 16:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	# {{diff2\|610226478\|16:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}} "i hate this gay shit"
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	# {{diff2\|610226258\|16:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}} "it was plagiarized and i didnt like it"
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
	# {{diff2\|610225872\|16:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}} "]Blanked the page"
			# </nowiki>]
	# {{diff2\|610225651\|16:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}} "]Blanked the page"
	# {{diff2\|610224572\|16:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}} "]Blanked the page"
	# {{diff2\|610224430\|16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Works */"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|610224593\|16:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Level 2 warning re. ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|610225930\|16:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Level 3 warning re. ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|610226302\|16:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)}} "Level 4 warning re. ] (])"

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

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' -, but
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*{{AN3\|ab}} ] <sup>]</sup> 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

			It seems like the user indeed adds suitable content for content that relates to Serbia. Therefore, a topic ban for Kosovo and Albania would be convenient. I don't know if that's possible here, though. ] (]) 23:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Citizens – Party of the Citizenry}} <br />
			*{{AN3\|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Walter Sobchak0}}

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of religious slurs}}
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xuangzadoo}}
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- 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\|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.)"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{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:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br /> This user has deleted information referenced with reliable sources (centre-left and anti-nationalism), he has also written other information without any source (Spanish nationalism) and lastly, he has used questionable sources to add lerrouxism and third way.] (]) 17:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270040704\|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
			# {{diff2\|1270045411\|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	I'm going to call it a day with respect to the ideology section but I'll reintroduce the other changes (the ones in the paragraphs, arbitrarily erased in the latest edition) because they <i>are</i> properly referenced, all of them. I agree Lerrouxism and Spanish Nationalism are open to discussion and the refs are questionable but the in-text edits are not; references are all adequate. ] (]) 20:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
	: No, {{reply\|Walter Sobchak0}}, you will not re-introduce anything. As per ], if you make a change and it's reverted, you then open a discussion on the article talkpage to obtain ] for all or part of your suggested edits. If you '''ever''' fail to follow BRD - even if it's as you say "adequate" for references, you '''will''' be blocked for edit-warring, and no further warnings will be required. The above disgusting show of brute-force edit-warring is unacceptable, and unless you have a really good reason AND show that you indeed do NOT intend to re-implement previous changes in any section, then a block right now is inevitable <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
	:: {{non-administrator observation}} DangerousPanda, not obeying ] is not grounds for a blocking. It is ''not'' a site policy, and is only an essay by some users. Of course, I'm not sure if they've violated the ] but I would limit the blocking based on actual policy, not an essay. ] (]) 22:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
	::: Of course it's an essay. Have you ''seen'' their edit-warring above? Are you ''aware'' that editors can be placed under ]? Is there a good reason for you to chime in here? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

			All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Trolling filer indeffed)==

			:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
	'''Page:'''
			:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
	* {{pagelinks\| List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films}} <br />
			:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{pagelinks\| Robo Shankar}} <br />
	* {{pagelinks\| Ekk Nayi Pehchaan }} <br />
	* {{pagelinks\| Gavin Menzies}} <br />
	* {{pagelinks\| Bobby Simha}} <br />
	* {{pagelinks\| Robo Shankar}} <br />
	* {{pagelinks\| Mellisai }} <br />

			== Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week) ==

	'''~~User being reported~~:''' {{~~userlinks~~\|~~TheRedPenOfDoom~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SpaDeX}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garundam}}
	Previous version reverted to:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269957055
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=126997dsver sg3309
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269998618
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1270115743

	* ]:





	* ]:





	* ]:








			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* ]:




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





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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />fe gs
	This user is highly vandalazing the wikipedia .
			df d
	Please do watch his contribution section ].
			Looks like nationalistic indians refusing to compromise and using wiki rules to prevent newcomers making good faith changes
	He only revert the changes giving the reason it is either outsourced or unimportant.
			] (]) 10:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	There is nothing whatsoever he has constructed on wikipedia by only deletion. It is recommended to block this user immediately.
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	: {{non-administrator observation}} I do not see any ] violations. The only revert I can see is on the last page, and that's just a single revert, not even close to edit warring. ] (]) 20:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|nv}}. Filer is a troll and probably a sock puppet, I just can't think of whom.--] (]) 20:08, 26 May 2014 (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)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			::Please see . Looks like a troll IP to me, making personal attacks. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nb\|1 week}} ] (]) 15:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Noorullah21}}
	Previous version reverted to: (more or less this version)

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ds fewdv
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1270170387\|07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270112351 by ] (]): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{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."
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]
			# {{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:'''
	<!-- 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\|1270110872\|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: multiple on talk page (],],],])
			# {{diff2\|1270113286\|00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
	====Brews_ohare: Response====
			# {{diff2\|1270205537\|12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
	The items:
	:1
	:2
	:3

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	are the insertion in the subsection ] of identical material regarding the contributions of Luhmann to the subject of applying enactivism to social interactions.
			# {{diff2\|1269985195\|10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1270115828\|00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270117437\|00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270123153\|01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270124950\|01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270128846\|01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270130305\|02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270131478\|02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270133699\|02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	The fourth item listed:
	:4.

			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)
	has no bearing at all upon this matter.

			: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.
	There is no dispute that Luhmann is very well regarded as a source, nor that what is said in the WP article is in any way a distortion of his position. The reasoning behind inclusion of Luhmann was provided on the Talk page as ].
			:“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”



			:It seems that you yourself were also edit warring, except your the one who’s adding disputed content so per ONUS, you were never supposed to revert him to begin with. You need to wait until talk page discussions conclude and gain consensus. ] (]) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::A. The instance you pointed out wadf gvdfs an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..)
			::B. When the individual hasn't concluded their ], you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind you ] is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until a ] can be made. The burden of proof is on you for ] (you also kept readding a non ] source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed out ] as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory. ] (]) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I also told said where per ], it's per them to seek Consensus. ] (]) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I reverted my edit as of now per the edit summary. (the last edit prior to that is the person working on our ]. ] (]) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This seems like ], but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one quoting: {{tq\|I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans"}} which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes. ] 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? the ] is being discussed.
			::::You've completely ignored this.
			::::
			::::
			::::
			::::
			::::Scroll down! (on the talk page). ] (]) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did.
			:::::@] has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless. ] (]) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::'''Both of us did''' No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through ], don't confuse it with ]. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of ]. ] 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::What?
			:::::::"No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former.
			:::::::"Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page.
			:::::::'''"The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT."''' - Are you insinuating @] is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about.
			:::::::A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.)
			:::::::B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?)
			:::::::C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?
			:::::::I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page? '''"The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."'''
			:::::::Flinging around accusations of Meatpuppetry clearly breaches ]. ] (]) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::You also did revert it three times.. Shown here:
			:::::::: (First time)
			:::::::: (Second time)
			:::::::: (Third Time) ] (]) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. ] 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?)
			::::::::::I didn't revert four times to break 3RR. Where are the diffs of me reverting you four times? ] (]) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	The assertion of Snowded was that this material was irrelevant to enactivism, and he made no attempt to substantiate that point of view. His responses at ] were unsupported by sources and consisted of erroneous conceptions of the topic conjured from his own mind. It was apparent that he had no intention of discussing this material or its sources, and instead was simply asserting and re-asserting his opinion with less and less civility.

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	Following the third insertion of this material, <nowiki>{{importance-section}}</nowiki> on the entire subsection (even though only a few last sentences were involved) questioning the importance of the entire subsection, an issue never raised. I subsequently (Torrance) and his views to this subsection, to support its relevance to enactivism.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	I think with the attachment of this tag, a proper talk page discussion is now in the works, and this busy-body intrusion by FyzixFighter is just that. The matter will settle itself, and no action is necessary. ] (]) 00:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

			As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			: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)
	I'm not an involved party in what appears to be a long simmering edit war here (and on a number of other page) between {{user\|Brews ohare}} and {{user\|Snowded}} and few others. I was involved years ago in some of the physics article disputes that led up to Brews ohare's ], so every once in awhile I drop in to see what he is up to. I wish I could say I'm surprised to see what is IMO some of the same behavior that got him in trouble before, specifically tendentious editing (including, but not limited to, accusing others of vandalism , accusing others of malice ), personal attacks (take your pick from the talk page), disregarding ] entirely (yes, I know this isn't policy, but it's a damn good essay on consensus building), and requiring that the onus be on those removing his new additions rather than on him when his edits are challenged (hence his justification for his reverts). The other actually involved editors might be able to give better examples. I'm not saying that the other editors are blameless in this edit war, but this looks like the first time in the edit wars that Brews has crossed the clearly defined line set by ], which is IMO a good indication that his behavior needs to be examined, especially in light of his previous dispute and editing issues. --] (]) 20:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. Putting aside Brews's history, which is complex and I'm unfamiliar with it, and even putting aside the unfounded accusations of vandalism and censorship (not really "malice"), it appears that Brews is not the only editor who has breached ] on this article. {{U\|Snowded}} has also done so, and both of them have been edit-warring for quite some time. One other editor that I can see has been slightly (in comparison) involved, but Brews and Snowded stick out like a sore thumb. How can I justify blocking one without blocking the other? Frankly, I'd like to hear from both.--] (]) 20:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
	::I think part of the problem lays with how Snowded tends to trail him around. I also think one of the refs is a little misleading, the one showing the removal of the essay tag ]. The diffs for the refs are close to violating 3rr but I agree that there is an overall long term edit war between the two of them. I think that if blocks are handed out they should be handed out evenly because there isn't just one problematic set of behaviors being shown here and Snowded has clearly shown a battleground mentality too. I think Brews has had a rough hack at things here and this has lead to a lot of the scrutiny that at times is petty, I often wonder if he would have an easier time starting a new account and see how things go, IMHO it might help but there isn't any mistaking brews that's for sure. ] (]) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Bbb23}} - I'm not seeing Snowded violating 3rr; I do see him doing 3 reverts total (,,) in a 24 hour window but there is more than 24hrs between the earliest of those edits and his revert () just previous to those three. I'm not saying that he wasn't edit warring, but he didn't cross the distinct 3RR line that Brews did (reverting a good-faith tagging is still a revert). I don't know if Snowded has been previously warned regarding expected standards and decorum, but Brews has explicitly been ] previously. In regards to "malice", I was basing that on the description in ], which includes as examples accusations of "censorship" and general lack of AGF. I agree "malice" may be a strong word here, but ] is what I was basing that description on. --] (]) 22:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{U\|FyzixFighter}}, you are correct about Snowded and 3RR. I counted edits on the 26th that were not reverts but pure additions. I'm not sure in this instance it matters much as the edit warring by both users is so blatant, but it can't be classified as a 3RR violation. As for a warning, an experienced editor like Snowded doesn't require a warning. Neither editor has edited on Misplaced Pages since I asked them to comment on their conduct, so for the moment I'm taking no action. Another administrator may feel differently, and I must say my inclination is to block them both, but I feel that would be unfair after I invited their input.--] (]) 23:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:52, 19 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

Page protected for a period of three days by Randykitty Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: The editor has immediately resumed edit warring with no participation in the Talk page discussion using a different IP address. Now will you please fulfill my request that they be blocked instead of just temporarily preventing all editors from editing the article? ElKevbo (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who protected it, as noted. But I'll look into it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

They shan't trouble you again. At least not on that article. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

User:46.217.186.173 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Adrikshit reported by User:Aman8188 (Result: Reporter blocked 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of two weeks by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

I stand by most of my insertions of the chart:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours from editing articles. WP:ONUS applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

Edit-warring IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: ds fewdv

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

erg eia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've completely ignored this.

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

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

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

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

What?

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

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

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

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

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

C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?

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

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

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

(First time)

(Second time)

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

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

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

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

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

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

ge gre gmitism&diff=prev&oldid=1270226516

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: