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 15:07, 9 May 2015 editDissidentAggressor (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,014 edits →User:Wintertanager reported by User:DissidentAggressor (Result: ): not to mention that you write puff PR pieces about execs← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:30, 19 January 2025 edit undoHeartGlow30797 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,035 edits protection expired
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
	<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 = ~~280~~		\|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: ) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|94.187.8.87}}
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hanswar32}}
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	Hanswar32's edit-warring spans a large number of BLP articles, and his entire time editing. His second edit ever is a revert, the beginning of a long-running edit war with {{user\|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} that has continued over the entire span of his editing (most recently ).

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	After he'd edit-warred with multiple editors, an ANI discussion was started: ]

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	He's had over a year to resolve this problem, and his solution appears to be to edit-war despite his unblock request where he wrote, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me." Despite this he never did seek to resolve the dispute in other manners, and started edit-warring a month later:

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

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations}}
	''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning'': (After receiving the warning, he reverted it then reverted a tag on an article ).

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|46.217.186.173}}

			'''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'': His entire talk page is nothing but editors trying to resolve this dispute with him. Most recently, I tried to do so ] as well as at ], ] and ] - all articles where he's continued to edit-war.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{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:'''
	I've made the mistake of trying to remove the poorly sourced content from these BLPs, which he (eg ) and {{user\|Scalhotrod}} (eg ) simply revert.
			# {{diff2\|1269596351\|12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

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

	I want to point out in his defense that he might be changing his habits somewhat, given his cleanup after that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz , instead of the normal edit-warring. He may realize now that non-notable awards shouldn't be listed, but he's yet to say so and I'm not going to remove any of his additions again, despite their being BLP violations requiring consensus for inclusion. --] (]) 20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
	:<s>From the comments below, it seems that perhaps Hanswar32 didn't notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup and so didn't revert them.</s> --] (]) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
	::It's ironic how you're usually clueless about me by your own various admissions yet are so eager to report me. Let me once again fill you in (fyi: it would be more prudent to simply ask these questions on my talkpage if you genuinely cared/wanted to know): I did not revert (as you correctly pointed out) nor would I revert Hullaballoo's edits above because I agree with him and would have made those same edits myself. If you read my last paragraph below, you'd know why I agree with him. And had I disagreed with him, evidence points to me not engaging in an edit-war over it because my dispute with Hullaballoo has died down 3 weeks ago. You're 3 weeks too late, and some of the evidence you point to are months old. Hullaballoo and I have been getting along without incidence for the past 3 weeks and like I mentioned below, we always end up working out an informal truce that lasts even much longer usually after a discussion. That's hardly edit-warring. ] (]) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Persistent edit warring. ] (]) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] ] 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Firstly, as a casual Misplaced Pages editor, I'd like to acknowledge that respecting and adapting to community etiquette and guidelines is necessary for the success of the project, and if one were to disagree with certain policies, seeking consensus over time will likely create positive change that is acceptable to all. I recognize {{U\|Ronz}}'s earnestness in his attempts to be a vigilant defender/applier of policy, but what he fails to realize is that his interpretation of policy does not necessarily equate to policy in terms of its intended meaning nor its correct application. It reminds of another user, SqueakBox, who has been blocked indefinitely on multiple occasions for his similarly extremely controversial interpretation of policy. I'd also like to note that Ronz is a bit sloppy when it comes to collecting facts or making accusations and he's even rescinded a previous claim he made against me on my own talkpage.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours) ==
	With that being said, I'd like to specifically address what has been said above. The edit he cites as my second edit ever, while true as "Hanswar32", is in fact not my second edit ever, as I was previously editing briefly as an IP user before I created this account in order to reap the benefits that a Misplaced Pages account provides a user. I invite any community member to review the ANI discussion above and its ultimate outcome as it was surely in my favor with me gaining the support of multiple editors by the end of it. Note that the ANI was started days after creating my account and I've never had to deal nor have been in conflict whatsoever with the editor who began that discussion as he simply disappeared afterwards from all articles that I'm involved in editing. In addition, and contrary to Ronz' false portrayal of me being involved in edit wars for over a year afterwards, I'd like to cite this talkpage in addition to my own talkpage as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "''if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, '''then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there'''.''" The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four ''15-month old'' examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739)}}
	Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree. To counter Ronz claim, I've been editing for a year and a half productively on the same articles with the following users whom I bet are willing to vouch for me {{U\|Scalhotrod}}, {{U\|Erpert}}, {{U\|Rebecca1990}}, {{U\|Gene93k}}, {{U\|Guy1890}}, {{U\|Morbidthoughts}} and {{U\|Dismas}} among others.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Asafviki}}
	Although I appreciate Ronz' attempt to mention something in my defense, it's just another incorrectly deduced assumption he's made. My stance on including sourced award wins did not and has not changed. The cleanup he mentions was simply me doing what I enjoy doing, which is improve the quality of information presented in these articles by adding what is missing and removing what should not be there. I did a similar cleanup to Stormy Daniel's article by removing 11 awards. In both cases, the awards I removed were not won by the subject directly, but were awards presented to the films themselves that the subject was involved with in someway, and previous consensus states that awards of this nature in such cases should not be included. ] (]) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
	*Although I'm sure I have edited some of the same articles that {{u\|Hanswar32}} has edited, I am not invested enough in this situation to really offer an opinion, so I instead request that my name be left out of it (in addition, the discussion ''here'' has already ventured into ] territory). '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 08:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
	:*{{ping\|Erpert}} Your input wasn't necessarily explicitly requested and you were free to comment or not comment at your discretion. My mention of you in addition to the others was simply a statement expressing my confidence that I have been editing the same articles as them without conflict. And judging by existing discussions at ANI and generally elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, I believe the length was appropriate considering the circumstances. ] (]) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* Hanswar32 continues to edit war --] (]) 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
	:*You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to '''''your''''' edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & {{u\|Nymf}}) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage . You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative. ] (]) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
	:*It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag . ] (]) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*'''Comment''' - There have been various conversations on article Talk pages as well as on the Porn Project Talk page along with related Project Talk pages and Noticeboards such as the ], ], and ]. So far it seems acceptable that significant awards like the AVN Award and XRCO (wins and nominations) are OK to list. This leaves the main applicable policy to be that of Notability with regard to content in that it states that it does not apply to content. In other words, listing a win for a non-Notable award is OK as long as its sourced. Furthermore, if analysis or anything past a basic statistic like a <nowiki>{{win}} or {{nom}}</nowiki>, must be sourced by a secondary source. This is just basic application of existing Policy.
			# {{diff2\|1269613200\|14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
			# {{diff2\|1269609369\|14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
			# {{diff2\|1269569554\|09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:The problem here is squarely on the unilateral interpretation of these Policies in much the same way that another User did last year. This instance does not seem to have the tendentiousness that the previous issue did, but it has similarity. One example is this discussion at ] where the Accuser claims that the main industry trade publication has a conflict of interest because it is supportive of the subject's non-profit activities and is trying to call into question ''any'' of its reporting on the BLP subject. I highly doubt anyone would make that claim (at least a believable one) of the ] or the ] with regards to programs they support and people associated with those programs. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 16:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269613702\|14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*'''Clarifying and summarizing''' Hanswar32 was blocked for edit-warring three days after he started editing with his current account. That block was removed based on his promise to stop edit-warring and learn and follow our ] approaches. He's failed his part of that promise by continuing to edit-war extensively and to use reverts as his main tool for addressing disputes. After being given a formal edit-warring notice for his latest round ( ) of edit-warring, his response was to revert. After this discussion was started, his response was to revert. --] (]) 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

	:*What "formal edit-warring notice" you're referring to (dif please)? As for the difs you provided, all I see is the addition of sourced and fairly basic content, an award win. Are you "clarifying and summarizing" that you don't like this? --] ] ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	:*:"Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" above. --] (]) 19:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	:*Your last comment Ronz neither clarified nor summarized anything except your own delusional beliefs built on falsehood instead of facts. All the evidence I presented and everything I wrote above proves that I indeed have kept my promise. ] (]) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	:*:I've provided diffs for everything. Are you contesting that you were blocked, or that you wrote what you did to lift the block, or that you made the many reverts since? --] (]) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	::::Is this a troll attempt Ronz? Because I find it hard to believe that someone could lack this amount of comprehension after I've made myself abundantly clear. I'm not going to dignify your questions with a response except to point out that you've had a history of being blocked for edit-warring . ] (]) 19:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Boy, that's a dishonest response by Hanswar. Ronz may not be a perfect editor, but his only block for edit warring came in 2007. ] (]) 20:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	::::::{{ping\|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} Kindly point out where I have been dishonest? That's right, you can't! And your claim is in and of itself dishonest. The one thing you got right though is "Ronz may not be a perfect editor". My only block was a year and a half ago within 3 days of creating my account, so I'd say Ronz and I have a similar history and that was exactly my point. Next time try harder, thanks. ] (]) 20:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, Wolfo is right about one thing, there's are dishonest statements here, but IMO its Ronz trying to claim that a previous incident is somehow evidence that current edits they do not like amount to Edit warring rather than just focusing on the issue at hand, whatever that is. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::Seems Hanswar32 is unable or unwilling to answer simple questions to clarify his aspersions. Seems he would rather attack others or editwar than follow our dispute processes. That's why we're here. --] (]) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::::Actually Ronz, I've answered everything sufficiently and you lacking basic comprehension or trolling is not of my concern. I'd like to see you answer to your transgressions and take responsibility for your false claims and disruptive behavior. ] (]) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*Hanswar32, I've a suggestion that might help. Please just tell us whether or not you will from now on follow your promise to learn and follow our ] rather than reverting. --] (]) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	:*Since I've never broken my promise to begin with, your suggestion seems kind of redundant, doesn't it? I have a suggestion of my own though: tell us whether or not you will refrain from making false accusations in the future and that you have learned your lesson from this miserably failed attempt of silencing those who disagree with you. ] (]) 22:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
	*Note that the edit-warring has continued by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( ) and Scalhotrod ( ). Seems that Wolfowitz considers the statements by Hanswar32 and Scalhotrod as reason to go ahead and remove the disputed content once again ( ). If nothing else, it clearly shows that Hanswar32 has certainly not resolved the dispute with Wolfowitz nor for which Hanswar32 was blocked. --] (]) 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
	:*There's so much wrong with your comment that I don't know where to even begin. Let me start off by declaring that continuously referencing a 1.5 year-old block that occurred within 3 days of account creation and lasted for only 2 hours due to it being immediately lifted after the admin accepted my appeal request is not only irrelevant for the reasons stated, but a despicable sign of desperation to win a losing argument by grasping at straws. You on the other hand had to serve the entire duration of your block for edit-warring after an admin refused your appeal request . What your comment does clearly demonstrate though is Hullaballoo's insistence on edit-warring/reverting by ignoring what I and many other editor's have established and agreed upon in numerous talkpages. After such discussions take place, Hullaballoo goes into hibernation mode for weeks to months and suddenly develops amnesia or plays dumb (I'm not sure which one) by doing massive reverts across a large number of articles as if discussions never took place. Scalhotrod and I, along with various other editor's have done our part by discussing the issue, coming to an agreement/consensus, and applying appropriate edits to the articles based off this consensus with Hullaballoo all of a sudden waking up from hibernation and having to repeat the cycle once again by reminding him and rediscussing the issue over with the same results. How you were able to conclude that I am blameworthy for allegedly failing to resolve a dispute with someone who exhibits such behavior as Hullaballoo through your observation that {{U\|Scalhotrod}} justifiably reverted a single page from among 6 pages Hullaballoo decided to impose his fallacious views on despite documented overwhelming opposition to them is beyond me. If you're so eager on finding a resolution to something which is clearly only bothering you, go ahead and report the source of the problem which is Hullaballoo and leave those who engage in discussions over the matter and come to an agreement over it alone. I'm sure you were also aware that this discussion was about to be archived and so to keep it active you decided to post a frivolous comment with information two days old that you were fully aware of the entire time. Is it fun being Ronz? Stop embarrassing yourself and let it go. ] (]) 09:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

			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)
	*Hanswar32 now continues edit-warring directly against his promises to stop: --] (]) 14:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. ] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:*{{ping\|Ronz}} Is this another pathetic troll attempt? Or just a desperate attempt to prevent this discussion from being archived? As a liar, I'm not expecting you to answer those questions since you've already ignored/failed to address anything previously mentioned above. And since you are a liar, I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say regarding the diff you cited, so don't read into this as me feeding the troll, I'm merely mentioning for anyone who happens to read this without checking the diff for themselves that the edit cited is completely benign and void of any warring (it involves no other editors, it's not an undo/revert and not even a restoration of disputed material taken off the article by an opposing editor) and Ronz, the troll/liar, knows this but is harassing me. I've gone ahead and formally warned you on your talkpage to stop your disruptive behavior/harassment. Keep it up, and you'll probably add on to your already multiple block history. ] (]) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::So no explanation for the continued edit-warring then? --] (]) 20:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|Scalhotrod}} Take a look at this troll, will you. Asides from the amusement, how do you suggest I proceed to ward off this minor annoyance/harassment? ] (]) 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	*Another revert --] (]) 14:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Southern~~ ~~strategy~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SmartLynx Airlines Estonia}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Getoverpops}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TG-article}}
	<!-- 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\|1269668652\|20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1269664490\|19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''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\|1269638908\|17:20, 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 -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most of the sections on the article talk pages are efforts to resolve the underlying issues. Specific discussions of removing the tag are at ]. See also ].

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	The editor is engaging in ]. User also posts as an IP and two of the reverts above were by the IP. This diff is an acknowledgement by the IP that he is also GetOverPops. Note that the 3RR warning issued mentioned specifically the use of IPs. ] (]) 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
	:North Shoreman is being dishonest in this complaint. He is correct that both IP reverts were mine (I had to find my password again). However, he is wrong about the edit war. He is trying to simply prevent edits he doesn't like. Last time he claimed something similar and was found to be wrong. The backdrop is there is an neutrality dispute associated with the article. I was away for a bit and an editor removed the tag even though the neutrality dispute had not been closed. I readded the tag today. It was removed again so I added it again with a statement that the neutrality dispute was not closed. The neutrality dispute had been archived so I will concede there was some merit to the previous removals. However, I have since reopened it and it is now on the current dispute page THUS it is an active dispute and thus the tag is correct (I did change the date). I resent that NS is attempting to use the rules to avoid a discussion of the article flaws. Regardless, so long as the neutrality dispute is active the tag SHOULD be there so my addition should not be seen as an edit issue.
	:NS has NOT tried to resolve the issue with the dispute tag on the talk page. This is not an edit war and wasn't the last time NS claimed as such. I would ask that because the Neutrality tag SHOULD be there while a neutrality discussion is in progress no action is taken against me for simply returning the tag. Thank you.] (]) 04:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	::Accusations of dishonesty are in bad faith and the evidence is clear that Getoverpops violated the 3RR rule and has returned to edit warring. He also admitted here that this was his IP. ] (]) 04:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::I admitted the IP address was mine in the paragraph above. Why are you acting like I'm trying to hide it? You improperly removed the tag after I restarted the neutrality dispute. The other editors would be right to say I let the dispute laps and thus the tag should be removed. However once I restarted the dispute on the dispute page it was 100% proper to add the tag again. You were wrong to remove it. Restoring it was the correct thing to do. My accusations against NS are valid. Previously he incorrectly claimed an edit dispute after just 3 edits (he falsely claimed a 4th which was the removal of obvious vandalism). Given that why shouldn't I believe he is doing this in bad faith?] (]) 05:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

			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)
	::::You were not cleared -- the referral went stale. As the referral makes clear, your edit warring as an IP had caused the article page to be semi-protected and in a separate issue your IP received a 24 hour block. I never claimed more than 3 reverts -- edit warring can occur w/o a violation of 3RR. See ] for details. ] (]) 12:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

			:@] This is not a 3RR violation. I see two reverts. ] ] 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::NS, Let's get your story straight. First, do you agree that the article is CURRENTLY the subject of a neutrality dispute, the one you linked to above? If yes, then why are we even here?
			::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.
	:::::For the record, the dispute tag was removed while I was off line for a bit (personal reasons). The dispute itself was never resolved but initially I didn't know the dispute had been archived. So when I saw the tag had been removed I added it. Someone removed it. I added it again with a note that the dispute was not closed. After that I saw that the dispute had been archived. At that point I reopened the dispute and, since the dispute was now open again (and is currently on going) I added the dispute tag back to the article. Are you claiming that an article that is the subject of a neutrality dispute should not have a tag? So I added the dispute tag back because the article was now the subject of an active dispute. Scoobydunk removed the tag for a 3rd time despite the fact that at the time he removed it the dispute was reopened and I had posted this in the article talk section. I would argue that adding it the 4th time was undoing vandalism as much as anything. So unless you think the tag currently does not belong on the article, why are we here?] (]) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (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)
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269663239\|reversion 1}}, {{diff2\|1269667404\|reversion 2}} (which was following a pertial reinstatement of their already reverted content)
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269638888\|partial reinstatement}} of reverted content, followed by {{diff2\|1269666092\|reinstating}} his reverted edit
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269664088\|reinstating}} their previously reverted content
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269664490\|reinstates}} their reverted edit, then {{diff2\|1269668652\|again partially reinstating}} their reverted edit.
			:::* ] - legitimately and in good faith {{diff2\|1269497042\|alters}} a template, but then after being reverted {{diff2\|1269636269\|doubles down}} and reinstates the edit.
			:::The user has previously been blocked for this exact same behaviour by ], and is nt responding to talk page messages. ] (]) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] (]) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	::::::We're here because you were edit warring which is a violation of WP policy and were warring to the extent of violating the 3RR rule which you've been warned about before.] (]) 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wolf Man (2025 film)}}
	{{AN3\|b}} – 48 hours. Long-term edit warring at ]. ] and his IP have been at AN3 before on the subject of this article. He tenaciously keeps restoring the POV tag while making little effort to advance the talk page discussion toward resolution. See:
	*]
	*]
	His IP has been .
	He . It sounds like he intends to keep the POV tag there until the article is changed to a version that he favors. Tags, like any other article content, need consensus. If your concern is still not addressed, open an RFC on some well-defined question, and leave it up to the consensus as to whether a POV tag is merited. ] (]) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|190.201.157.28}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|John Popper}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|GageSkidmore}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1269704227\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269703995\|23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269673354\|20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Reception */"
			# {{diff2\|1269640157\|17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

	;Diffs of ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1269704229\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
	# {{diff2\|661031537\|00:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "FYI, ] requires 4 reversions within 24 hours, revert once more and you have violated 3RR. also feel free to point to any policy against your claim of self promotion"
	# {{diff2\|661030850\|00:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "also seems to be a violation of ]"
	# {{diff2\|661029784\|00:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "not when it's a better photo, will take to ]"
	# {{diff2\|660785816\|15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)}} "are you serious?"

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ / ~~3RR~~ ~~warning~~:		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page
	# {{diff2\|661031158\|00:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for a month) ==
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|660697628\|03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Images */ Images"
	# {{diff2\|661031372\|00:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* May 2015 */ BRD"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Until Dawn (film)}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562}}
	Gage has been edit warring over the infobox image - He's been reuploading images and been adding his name to the end of them which is as far as I'm aware a violation of ], I've attempted to discuss the issues and even made him aware of BRD but he's refusued to talk so here we are, –]<sup>]</sup> 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:Pinging {{u\|MrX}}, {{u\|Spartan7W}}, {{u\|Lady Lotus}} who have all had issues with his uploads. –]<sup>]</sup> 00:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|comment}} 3RR requires reversion of four or more edits within 24 hours, this does not exist. Discussion exists on the talk page for the article, reporter did not engage in that discussion. Clear violation of ], in which the user deliberately went through and reverted about 20 edits, this being the only one I took issue with because the image is clearly better. User claims I am violating Misplaced Pages policy by "self promoting," I have asked the user to point to this policy, but since it does not exist they have not done so. ] makes no mention of this. Also seems to have some serious ] issues. ] (]) 00:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	**Nope it doesn't - Just reverting twice ''is'' edit warring - Exactly it exists on your talkpage yet you have failed to even bother replying which clearly indicates you have far better things to do like edit war than have a civilised convo over it, I reverted 20 or so because I believed you were and still are violating selfpromo but that's not hounding you in the slightest, "OWNERSHIP issues" is just bs. –]<sup>]</sup> 01:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	***{{AN3\|comment}} This is ], I did not violate 3RR. Still have not received answer regarding what policy I am violating by your claim of "self promotion." ] seems to clearly describe your recent editing behavior, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I stand by ] claim as well. ] (]) 01:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	****3RR as MrX has said is a brightline but doesn't mean you should reach it, I explained the selfpromo above, I reverted 20 or so of the images and since then have not followed you anywhere so no I maintain I wasn't HOUNDING you at all, The OWNERSHIP issues is crap and I think you're looking for excuses now ..... –]<sup>]</sup> 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	*****{{AN3\|comment}} Awaiting policy statement regarding self promotion. Rejection of wrongdoing on your part is very childish of you. ] (]) 01:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	******Look right above you, Oh dear petty insults!, See this is the part where I usually get frustrated and write some expletives but meh you're not even worth it, I sharn't be replying unless you have something sensible to say!. –]<sup>]</sup> 01:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	*******{{AN3\|comment}} Looks to me like your reason for reverting 20+ articles and violating ] does not exist. ] (]) 01:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:*Your last edit summary strongly suggests that you are trying to ] the system by staying just this side of the ]. Although not within the purview of this board, you need to learn to cooperate with other editors and that includes consistently using edit summaries.- ]] 01:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269723705\|01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	::*As far as I'm concerned this board is for edit warring, not just 3R violations, so edit warring, if that's what's been happening, is certainly actionable following a report here. I can't follow up on it right now, unfortunately. ] (]) 01:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269722106\|01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	:::*{{AN3\|comment}} I would argue that Davey2010 is the one that is edit warring. ] (]) 01:48, 6 May 2015 (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"
	*{{AN3\|comment}} Please ], in which I make my argument that his edits relative to {{U\|GageSkidmore}}'s edits were ]. As far as I'm concerned, {{U\|Davey2010}} continued the same activity after {{U\|Stemoc}} at least temporarily withdrew from it. Whether or not Gage's re-uploading and re-linking of his images with different names was advisable, it was not vandalism, did not violate any policy I've been able to find and should not have been reverted ''en masse'' as both editors seemed to be doing vigorously. Stemoc in particular seemed to have nothing but contempt for the established process for addressing this kind of dispute. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269684805\|diff=1269714293\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:*{{AN3\|comment}} I, nor '''Davey2010''', nor '''MrX''' are belligerents in edit warring. I completely agree with Davey2010's insinuation: Perhaps you aren't breaking the letter of the regulations here, but you are violating the spirit of them. He doesn't cooperate with other editors, he doesn't respond to talk page posts, requests, etc. His edits, especially with self-promoting pictures, do not add to the quality of the articles. He removes sections, he has done that before. He doesn't use discussion, seek consensus, or describe his edits. How do I know ''why'' he did an edit without it? Its not like he's new, its not like he hasn't been politely asked. I know he reads the talk page, because for ], I told him he should make transparent his version of her campaign logo, and guess what? It happened. Even if no rules are being explicitly broken, it games the system, and frustrates other editors who follow protocol, style, and gentlemanly cooperation. '''] ]''' 02:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
			## {{diff2\|1269714124\|00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Enough with the vandalism already"
	:*I personally don't believe I was hounding but if others believe I was than I apologize for that - I never once said this was vandalism tho?, I said it was selfpromoting which I still believe it is. –]<sup>]</sup> 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
			## {{diff2\|1269714293\|00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"
	::*{{AN3\|comment}} Whether it is true or not, there is no policy against self promotion. You linked a completely unrelated policy. ] (]) 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::*Also we better go through and remove every photo with "by David Shankbone" in the title. ] (]) 02:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	::::*If your name is in the description box and the link goes to the image then why selfpromote?, There's no need too ...., Yeah lets do that shall we. –]<sup>]</sup> 02:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::::*Lack of necessity of their edits (in your opinion) is not valid grounds for mass reversion of another editor. If it was, there'd be a whole lot more of it. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 02:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::You clearly missed my point in mentioning vandalism. Obvious vandalism is the only circumstance in which an editor should summarily and instantly revert multiple of another editor's edits on sight. You did not say Gage's edits were vandalism, but you behaved as if you thought they were (when they were not). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 02:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|comment}} Also at the Wikimedia Commons with the Commons admin that Stemoc mentioned to me in our discussion. If I could summarize her comments, she doesn't approve of Gage's re-uploading/re-naming activity, but neither does she think that following him around and reverting all of his edits over this issue is an appropriate use of Misplaced Pages editors' time. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 02:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	**The user in question is already given "attribution" on commons just like everyone else who provide their images free-of-charge to wikimedia but he also gets his own category because he has provided a lot of images but this user has a habit of thinking he ] pages and thus only his version which has his name should be use in article even though images from the same event with better cropping done by more experienced users such as Lady Lotus and myself are removed and replaced by his image with his added name in the image title...how exactly is that NOT '''SELF-PROMOTION'''? he previously used to add his name to the image caption on infoboxes too. I did not withdrew from his "vandalism" reverts (yes that is what they are, he is literally "spamming" wiki'''M'''edia to promote himself, in general cases we ban users who do that but he gets a lifeline cause of his contribution to commons it seems), I stopped to avoid the 3RR rule....he is also not responsive and rarely uses edit summaries to justify his edits (if there is any justification). I agree with Davey2010 on this and yes Gage, we will happily replace all of David Shankbone's images if it can be replaced by better and/or more recent images. If we allow one user such as you this chance, all we will be left with will be people requesting that their name be attributed to the title or refuse to release their images, we do '''NOT''' want to set a precedent.. You are more than welcome to change the license of your images on flickr to a non-free one and we will no longer allow uploads from it if you are so determined to propagate your own personal interests ahead of the principles of Wikimedia... --<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 06:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	***I agree with Stemoc and Davey. I have no problem when uploading an image by Gage to include his name in the file name but for him to go and completely upload the same exact image and everything JUST to have his name in it and on the article, I don't see that as anything other than self-promotion and unnecessary. He is given the right attribution on every file, so I see no reason to edit war over this if it's just to add his name. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 14:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Umm this could be completely unrelated here but judging by another editor here was arb-blocked for the exact same reason so If one editor was blocked for it why shouldn't this one be too ? (All for I know there could've been more issues with that user and he may of even been blocked for something totally different but thought it was worth mentioning). –]<sup>]</sup> 11:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269716711\|00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
	::Perhaps you missed these comments by Commons administrator Green Giant in that very same discussion (emphasis added): "I'm not sure there is anything preventing filename changes as long as the other aspects of attribution are met, within reason. It could be argued that it is met by WPPilot's name being kept in the author line. However, I do note that there are some files where the authors name is included and it has never been questioned... So my conclusion for the first issue is that '''there appears to be nothing in <nowiki></nowiki> policies or the licenses that prevents an authors name being included in the filename'''." <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 13:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269716853\|00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
	:::Nope I read his comment, Reading both discussions despite his comments there looks like there's some confusion with it all, I dunno I just thought it was worth mentioning anyway, –]<sup>]</sup> 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' This complaint raises the question whether ] has engaged in self-promotion by reverting to add his own photos to articles. If that's all it was, it would certainly cause concern. I read , including what ] said (in their role as a Commons administrator). The question whether the photographer's name should be in the file name is certainly one that we can leave to Commons. What we can address here is if someone is trying to force a specific result when it's evident they don't have consensus. I notice five reverts over three days by ] at the ] article. This is, in fact, enough to bring down a verdict of edit warring. I'm leaving a note for ] to see if he will agree to make no further reverts regarding the photo on that article. If so this complaint might be closed with no action. ] (]) 14:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	::Actually, the user tried to rename an image from his flickr which I uploaded last year with his name on the end which i declined. The current name of the image indicated the location where it was taken and the year and his request didn't even have a reason..and then he tried to replace a better image (not his) of a known actor with a pic of his which was of a poor angle..the user is intentionally trying to "enforce" his images throughout this wiki, generally we will accept it if its good but to "intentionally" upload the same image just to add their name to the image title for self-promotion is indeed not allowed on commons, as i said above and on my talk page, this is a commons issue but since its been brought here, it may as well be solved here...The MAIN problem apart from the image name issue is the user's lack of understanding or possibly intentional habit of not using the edit summary to guise his edits as most users look at edit summaries to know what change was made..The user has a high edit count and nearly 6 years on the wiki so i doubt its the lack of understanding of our rules..--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 03:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	'''Result''': ] is '''warned''' that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if they continue the pattern of edits documented in this complaint. In particular, any warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others can be sanctioned. Continuing to revert regarding a picture where it's evident that you don't have consensus may lead to a block. ] (]) 16:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|TVXQ}}
			I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|MugenDarkness}}

			Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: ].
	;Previous version reverted to:

			The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: ]
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|661106610\|14:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""

			Regards, — ] ] 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:{{AN3\|p}} for one month by {{noping\|ToBeFree}} ] (]) 21:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kajari}} <br />
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Adrikshit}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			#
			#
			#
			#

	Started edit-warring immediately after release of 60-hr block and after using IP socks to continue edit-warring during the block. Please see . ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 15:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b\|1 month}} Continued warring about the "15 million" claim at ]. Two previous edit warring blocks since May 1. ] (]) 18:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	::Thank you Ed for your hard work as an admin. Take care. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Advice regarding the link to ]) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Meghan Trainor}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Winkelvi}}

			'''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. -->

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|661031282\|00:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by Joseph Prasad (talk): WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument or a reason to revert - please discuss on talk page."
	# {{diff2\|661053440\|04:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by Interlude65 (talk): "generally" indicates not always - please discuss on talk page per WP:BRD."
	# {{diff2\|661078905\|10:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Please follow BRD at the article talk page, do jot edit war."

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			{{AN3\|nb\|two weeks}} by {{noping\|ToBeFree}} ] (]) 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|661031859\|00:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "→‎Including Title (EP): new section"
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			:I have also added a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. ] (]) 21:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	~~Reverted~~ ~~three~~ ~~times~~ on ~~Trainor's page, telling others~~ to ~~discuss~~ ~~on the talk~~, ~~then refusing to do it himself, and reverts whoever reverts his revert~~. -- ] (]) 19:09, 6 ~~May~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		::And Aman has been alerted to contentious topics, too. ] (]) 21:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result:indefinitely partially blocked) ==
	:] says an editor cannot perform ''more than'' three reverts, i.e. four or more is the violation. You've only provided three reverts. Considering that and the fact that this is now fairly stale, I don't think any action should be taken at this time. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 17:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Chasewc91}}, I never said anything about 3RR, I said edit warring. Which can happen without 3RR. -- ] (]) 00:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' There has been a revert war on whether to include a See also link to ] in the main article on the singer ]. A related discussion is happening at ]. If anyone here continues to add or revert the See also link before consensus is reached, the person doing so is risking a block. ] (]) 15:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Killing_of_Wong_Chik_Yeok}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation)==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Straight Outta Compton (2015 film)}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|HENDAWG229}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:


			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			# {{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:'''
	User repeatedly reverted edits on ] by deleting verified information without substantial or convincing reasoning other than ] - ].
	He further pasted copyrighted material to the article, which is in violation of ] - ].

	User was already warned on his talkpage but has ignored the points brought forward and responded by planning to report in turn, should the case be pursued. ] (]) 22:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

	:I continue to revert edits made by ] because the only reference the user can give for their edits is IMDb. User is confusing this film's page (]), with the artist this film is about page (]). I tried to explained that the life of the artists is not being portrayed in this biopic as the life of the artist played out in real life, as the references I have provided to this user shows them. User doesn't understand that filmmakers use creativity when producing a biopic and can put in or "leave out" certain elements of an artists life. As the references I have included in the article and pointed out to this user clearly show, the sixth member of this group that they continue to try to add to the pages intro, has been significantly left out by producers of this film. I challenge this user to find one webpage or source that shows this members involvement in this film and they couldn't. As you can see on their contribution's page, it's hard for this user to take no for an answer... even when they have been proven wrong. For background on the artists depicted in this biopic, WP users can visit their WP page (]). For information about the film that dramatizes their life, their life after the sixth member left the group, WP users can visit the ] page. And, yes, I added a quote I saw in article about the film that accurately tells the film synopsis but I thought press releases were released to the public.] (]) 23:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

	::I believe that the case is sufficiently clear, as ] has both admitted to deleting information in order to shape the article to his liking and to pasting copyrighted material into a WP article. He fails to understand that verified information is not affected by interpretations of facts -- in this case a biopic. To illustrate the case in point, it says in the introductory paragraph: <cite>The film revolves around the rise and fall of the Compton, California rap group N.W.A, whose members include Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, MC Ren and DJ Yella.</cite> The member in question, ], was a founding member of the group, regardless of which artistic interpretation of the band's history the movie itself pursues. Following this, he must not be left out, because it cannot be expected from a reader to check if information provided in different articles is contradictory and/or false. This was consensus among editors, if I may add. My suggestion to instead elaborate which members the film focuses on and add it to the main section of the article was declined by ]. I am under the impression that he either hasn't fully grasped how WP editing is supposed to work, further indicated by the comments left on his ] page, or that he simply doesn't care. Another aspect to keep in mind is that the movie hasn't been released yet, so his claims are based on pure conjecture. For these reasons alone, POV pushing and information deletion is unacceptable, together with the aforementioned copyright violations, which he restored in lieu of the neutral synopsis I had written. There might even be a case of ], judging from the co-edits by other accounts. He remains adamant about these violations. ] (]) 21:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	My information is sourced. The information this user is trying to add isn't sourced for this film. This page is about the film not the group. For example, ] list up to 50 past members. The film about this comic (]) only include the characters that are portrayed in the film. And the intro on the film's page only list the starring characters... not every member of the group being portrayed in the film. The sources to my claims that Arabian Prince is not an important fixture in this film is the film's official website, the film's official trailers, the film's official facebook page, and the fact that there is not one article on the internet, the whole internet, that states that Arabian Prince is being portrayed in this film. Just an uncredited mention on IMDb, which this WP user must not understand is not a reliable source by itself. By viewing this user's talk and contribution's pages, I can see they think they are the see all, know all about N.W.A but as they have stated themselves, the film hasn't been release yet so all we can go on is the sourced information with references about the film... not background information about the group... which is a separate entity from the the film.] (]) 23:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|nv}} – Not enough reverts to break 3RR. I encourage all parties to use the article Talk page. ] (]) 02:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	::He has copied an entire paragraph of third-party content unaltered into the WP article, how is this not a violation of WP rules? Thanks. -] (]) 06:44, 8 May 2015 (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: 48 hours) ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Rodrigo Branco‎}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Biancacunha92‎}}

			: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)
	#{{diff2\|661172175\|23:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661171965 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|661171686\|23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|661132704\|18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "]Blanked the page"
	# {{diff2\|661131200\|17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "]Replaced content with '{{Use dmy dates\|date=July 2013}} {{Infobox biography \| name = Rodrigo B'"
	# {{diff2\|661131092\|17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "]Replaced content with '{{Use dmy dates\|date=July 2013}} {{Infobox football biography \| name = Rodrigo B'"
	# {{diff2\|661130987\|17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "]Blanked the page"
	# {{diff2\|661130761\|17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "]Blanked the page"
	# {{diff2\|661130655\|17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours from editing articles) ==
	# {{diff2\|661131068\|17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|661131195\|17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|661135730\|18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|661172270\|23:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Capitalism}} <br />
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Free market}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Extreme poverty}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Distribution of wealth}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Poverty reduction}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Trickle-down economics}} <br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Timeshifter}}
	# {{diff2\|661135659\|18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Fortdj33.

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	The user is attempting to get this page deleted, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, since they kept removing their comments from my talkpage. Repeated blanking of the page, and now repeatedly adding inappropriate PRODs, despite the fact I've contested them. ] (]) 23:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* {{AN3\|b\| 48 hours}}. Many reverts; other problematic editing. ] ] 02:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|David B. Samadi}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Thewatchfulobserver}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|661174310\|23:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|661173116\|23:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Someone keeps deleting accurate information"
	# {{diff\|oldid=660617744\|diff=661158840\|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) to 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|661157408\|21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Updated Occupation"
	## {{diff2\|661158840\|21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Many areas were missing from before, updated"
	#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|661173272\|23:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "reply"
	# {{diff2\|661173406\|23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|661173445\|23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

	~~;Diffs~~ of ~~attempt~~ to ~~resolve~~ ~~dispute~~ ~~on article~~ talk page:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

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

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

			I stand by most of my insertions of the chart:
	This user keeps adding unsourced, promotional spam. After agreeing to source their edits, they still continued to add content with too few ]. ] (]) 23:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
			*]
	*'''Result:''' There are no reverts in the last 24 hours, and there is a reasonable discussion on the user's talk page. ] is '''warned''' they may be blocked the next time they add unsourced material or promotional language to the article. ] (]) 02:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

			I addressed Avatar317's points in my edit summaries. But he sometimes did not address my points in his 2nd reversions.
	;Page:
	{{pagelinks\|List of converts to Islam from Hinduism}} <--- Primary (I initially put this here, however, this was removed by Delibzr, however I have re-added it, see )

			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)
	{{pagelinks\|Mughal–Maratha Wars}}

			: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.
	{{pagelinks\|Battle of Pavan Khind}}
			: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) ==
	{{pagelinks\|Battles involving the Maratha Empire}}

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

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

	~~For~~ the ~~first~~ ~~article~~:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
	{{diff2\|661102047\|}}
			#
	{{diff2\|661188571\|}}
			#
	{{diff2\|661102047\|}}
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

	The user also seems to be stalking my contributions and has reverted changes that took me a long-time and were sources. Here are the diffs for his revisions on other articles I contributed on:

	{{diff2\|661188518\|}}<----I spent a long time removing the biased material on this article. The reasons may be found in the edit summaries. Before I came it neglected almost entirely the victories of the Mughals, Nawabs and others against the Marathas. I cited a variety of academic sources and gave my reasons, however ] reverted it and did not provide adequate reasoing. I told him to take up any issues with me on the talk page, however he refuses to do so, rather he suggests I deserve to have my sourced edits removed. He says: ''You are violating BLPs, that means you can be reverted many more times.'' He does not provide any proof as to what I have violated and he does not provide legitimate critics, sources, and academic discourse to talk about my changes.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ;
	{{diff2\|661195091\|}}<---I also worked hard on this article to remove biased language and provided my details in the edit summaries. He claims it is ''revert POV editing'' without providing any justification for this accusation.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	{{diff2\|661195145\|}} <---Heavily biased article with no references was largely removed by me. He reverted it. He did not provide adequate reasoning. He has not once tried to settle this or any issue on the talk page(s).

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			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)
	{{diff2\|661124397}}, {{diff2\|661192312}}, {{diff2\|661192792}}
			*{{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) ==
	;Warnings


			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Timur}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tamerlanon}}
	*He is violating ] at ], see this:- he is using rumor sites for claiming those people to have been converted to Islam who never converted to Islam. On other articles, he is just whitewashing the history and misrepresenting references. He is also making disruptive page moves. ] (]) 03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	::You have not once mentioned any of this on the talk page. That sources was used for Dharmendra and his wife. Here is another source for Dharmendra and his wife from the Milli Gazette . This is however off-topic, since you should have brought this up on the talk page rather than edit war. I am not whitewashing the history. Once again you failed to adequately talk about it. The only source that says it was a Maratha victory (that I have come across) was about.com, which is not reliable. Other, more academic sources treat it as a Guerilla war that continued long after 1707. Also, according to the quote on Misplaced Pages supposedly by a professor named Stanley,

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::"''the conquest of the Deccan, to which, Aurangzeb devoted the last 26 years of his life, was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory, costing an estimated hundred thousand lives a year during its last decade of futile chess game warfare. The expense in gold and rupees can hardly be accurately estimated. Aurangzeb's encampment was like a moving capital – a city of tents 30 miles in circumference, with some 250 bazaars, with a 1⁄2 million camp followers, 50,000 camels and 30,000 elephants, all of whom had to be fed, stripped the Deccan of any and all of its surplus grain and wealth ... Not only famine but bubonic plague arose ... Even Aurangzeb, had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he was nearing 90 ... "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son, Azam, in February 1707''"

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	::If we look at this, Aurangzeb DID conquer the Deccan territory, so the claim that the Marathas had dominion over the Deccan NEEDS REFERENCING. Once again, we may talk about it on the talk page, however you did not do that. I did not misrepresent the reference. Show me where in the reference it said escape. Read my edit summaries.
			# {{diff2\|1270047251\|17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
			# {{diff2\|1270045995\|17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?"
			# {{diff2\|1270040416\|16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
			# {{diff2\|1269989123\|11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Discussion: He was born in 1320. Give a source?"
			# {{diff2\|1269974575\|09:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269974278\|09:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269967855\|diff=1269969911\|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269968118\|08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1269969911\|08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269966433\|08:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	::Your accusations are baseless, you refuse to talk about it, you revert without proper examination, you neglect my hard-work, etc. This shows bad-behavior. ] (]) 03:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269972530\|09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1269987649\|10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
			# {{diff2\|1269994020\|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|High fructose corn syrup and health}}
			*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}}. ] (]) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|85.211.109.208}}

			== 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.
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			They also removed "Albanian" from the article of ] and replaced it with Serbian. </nowiki>] As I can't notify IPs about ongoing discussions, I will leave it like that. It appears that the user possesses no will for encyclopedic cooperation. ] (]) 19:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	# {{diff\|oldid=661113813\|diff=661162248\|label=Consecutive edits made from 16:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC) to 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|661119230\|16:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "nope, it's wrong to dismiss the entire fructose controversy and evidences of fructose's harm with a single sentence in the lead, even with A Citation (your opinion+individual citations ≠ scientic consensus)"
	## {{diff2\|661162248\|21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "the material is valid and supported by citations, so please don't attack it"
	# {{diff2\|661170199\|22:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661163554 by ] (]) to dismiss all the studies cited in the article that do show greater harm from hfcs, with a single unnuanced sentence, makes a mockery of the article and of NPOV"
	# {{diff2\|661173542\|23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661163403 by ] (]) studies about AGEs don't need to mention hcfs; these citations are preceded by proof that hfcs has dicarbonyls, which lead to AGEs"
	# {{diff2\|661195453\|02:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}} "fructose is the subject of many of the studies on this page; it is the reason so many scientists and dieticians are interested in HFCS in the first place - they certainly think it's relevant"

			:{{AN3\|m}} ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			::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)}} ""
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270003652\|diff=1270044450\|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|661173502\|23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* HFCS no more dangerous than sucrose */ r"
			## {{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) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	Saw this all pop up on my watchlist and tried to restore most of the article to the status quo version. It looks like this IP user is still edit warring. By my count, that's at least 8 total reverts in a 24 hour period even after being warned about 3RR with additional reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	Looks like a quick block is more warranted at this point to keep the user from reinserting content while they fail to go to the talk page to get consensus for any edits. ] (]) 06:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b}} – 48 hours. The IP wants to be sure that fructose is appropriately criticized but has never used the article talk page. ] (]) 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi) ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|West Azerbaijan Province}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|77.132.137.184}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks\|Astius}}, {{pagelinks\|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks\|Angelina of Serbia}} <br />
	;Reason:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|187.36.171.230}}
	Plz see vandalism 77.132.137.184 IP in ] article, for example see history .
	:1)Profanity → donkey....--2)False writing word of Azerbaijani language.--3):Change the entries and numbers.--4):Insist on writing wrong model name of Urmia --5):put the youtube, Blog and ... for Ethnic claims--<font size="+1" face="phalls Khodkar, B Fantezy, B Ferdosi" color="#9966FF">''']'''<sup>]</sup></font> 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' Article semiprotected. The IP is reverting the lead and changing ethnic terminology with no communication on the talk page. ] (]) 14:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' Christianity in Kosovo: , Astius: , John Koukouzelis:
	== Update regarding ] (Result: Article semiprotected) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Could someone look into recent activity on ] please.
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>]

	] (]) 06:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' An IP had been warring to include a negative description of Bob Duff's sponsorship of a bill called SB-1. Duff is a member of the Connecticut State Senate. I semiprotected ] for two months per ] on a version of the article which doesn't contain the slanted description of this work. Editors on the talk page should try to agree on a more neutral description of SB-1 if they think it is important enough to include. ] (]) 19:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' -
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Supercarrier}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|M.srihari}}

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' -, but
	<!-- 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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <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. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			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)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			*{{AN3\|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of religious slurs}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xuangzadoo}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	] ] 13:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	{{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}} ] (]) 18:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270068423\|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
			# {{diff2\|1270041541\|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
			# {{diff2\|1270039369\|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
			# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
			# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270041824\|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
			# {{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>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Deflategate}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Joseph A. Spadaro}}

			All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661196117
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661197079
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661196035
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661193882

			:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
	Previous version reverted to:
			:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
			:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week) ==
	<!-- 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:
	{{cot\|1=Not multiple diffs, just the text from the same two diffs repeated. ] (]) 17:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}}
	Many many more reverts than these 4, I just don't have time to add all examples
	# removed: The report of the investigation was released in May 2015.<ref name=wells>{{cite web\|title=INVESTIGATIVE REPORT CONCERNING FOOTBALLS USED DURING THE AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME ON JANUARY 18, 2015 \|url=https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf\|author=Wells, T.\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2015-05-0
	# removed: The report of the investigation was released in May 2015.<ref name=wells>{{cite web\|title=INVESTIGATIVE REPORT CONCERNING FOOTBALLS USED DURING THE AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME ON JANUARY 18, 2015 \|url=https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf\|author=Wells, T.\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2015-05-0
	# removed: The report of the investigation was released in May 2015.<ref name=wells>{{cite web\|title=INVESTIGATIVE REPORT CONCERNING FOOTBALLS USED DURING THE AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME ON JANUARY 18, 2015 \|url=https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf\|author=Wells, T.\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2015-05-0
	#}}</ref> The report of the investigation was released in May 2015.<ref name=wells>{{cite web\|title=INVESTIGATIVE REPORT CONCERNING FOOTBALLS USED DURING THE AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME ON JANUARY 18, 2015 \|url=https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf\|author=Wells, T.\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2015-05-07}}</ref>
	{{reflist}}
	{{cob}}
	<!-- 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:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SpaDeX}} <br />
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garundam}}
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269957055
	This user has hijacked this page and it is filled with many inaccuracies. When people try to add information or edit inaccuracies, he deletes the correct information<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
			# 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

	:A simple glance at the shows that the diffs presented are a major misrepresentation of the situation, either out of ] or ]. ] (]) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

	::I would also like to point out that the reporter didn't inform Joseph A. Spadaro, as they are obliged to- I informed them instead. ] (]) 17:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::There's that too. I'm getting tempted to just non-admin close this and leave a warning on the OP's talk page. There's nothing actionable (even ]-able), and the report was filed for the wrong reasons. ] (]) 17:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
	::::Yeah, I'm going to do just that, ]. Save the admins some work. ] (]) 18:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

	*'''Result''': <small>(])</small> '''No action needed'''. Individuals reported and reporting did not approach 3rr, report appears to be a mistake. ] (]) 18:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|East Coast hip hop}} <br />
			https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Garudam&diff=prev&oldid=1270190529
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|71.178.130.74}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />fe gs
	<!-- 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. -->
			df d
			Looks like nationalistic indians refusing to compromise and using wiki rules to prevent newcomers making good faith changes
			] (]) 10:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			:You have not linked to efforts to make a cosd e mpromise or even warned other editors that they might be edit warring. "Nationalistic Indians" is a very serious thing to say and I suggest that you focus on the content and less about the nationality of the editors involved. ] (]) 10:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Previous version reverted to:
			::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: ) ==
	<!-- 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\|Battle of Jamrud}}
	<!-- 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\|Noorullah21}}
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and ] "Discussions" took place primarilly on IP's talk page.

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# {{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.."
	User is repeatedly adding unsourced content. I had warned the IP about copyright violation, but it turned out to be copy/pasted from a Misplaced Pages mirror. The copy/pasted information was unsourced. ] (]) 01:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{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."
	* {{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}}. Clear reverts; was warned prior. ] ] 02:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1270110872\|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1270113286\|00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1270205537\|12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Equality before the law}}
			# {{diff2\|1269985195\|10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Cubancigar11}}
			# {{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>
	;Previous version reverted to:

			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)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|661078981\|10:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Feminism */"
	# {{diff2\|661223487\|08:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661098089 by ] (]) Reinstating ] view before this is settled. Lets discuss on talk page and not wage revert war."
	# {{diff2\|661306303\|20:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661298069 by ] (]) - Stop personally attacking me, which appears to be your 'single purpose'."
	# {{diff2\|661348873\|02:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Added source and expanded section. Removed personal opinion of serial abusers. Go to talk page, this is not your friend's personal blog and everyone else is not your slave forced to promote to promote your opinions."
	# {{diff2\|661350904\|03:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Feminism */ Ooh it is so much fun to quote the journals of encyclopedia. Little people won't understand the meaning of authoritative. I guess the professors and authors of book are also having only personal opinions."

			: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.
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”
	# {{diff2\|661349085\|02:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"


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

			: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)
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			::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..)
	* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 03:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			::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: No ~~action~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==

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

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# 09:29, 7 May 2015
	# 19:43, 7 May 2015
	# 20:07, 7 May 2015
	# 20:40, 7 May 2015

	<!-- 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:

			'''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: <br>
	There seems to have been '''zero''' discussion on the talk page about the edit-warring by both sides. I note one paragraph about the content, nothing at all about the escalating conflict.

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	] for 3RR breach, but in the process reverted four times within twelve hours. Looks like both editors got a little hot under the collar. I'd like to see more discussion and less reversion. Thorne seems to have been in the right, content-wise, but this doesn't excuse the breach of 3RR. --] (]) 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:The original edit in this sequence was not a revert but the removal of incited and/or incorrectly cited material inserted some days earlier with a number of intermediate edits to the effect that a ship ''INS Vishal'' is under construction when at best it will be started in 2017 or 2018 and is currently in the planning phase with the design not even finalized. I was unaware of who inserted that info as i did not look at the time, I was just removing incorrect info. Since that edit i have found out that this editor had been edit warring over this and relayed matters with other editors as well. In short I made an edit and then was reverted 4 times, i only reverted 3 times and stopped so add to avoid 3RR,but i note that the other editor reverted a further 2 times and was reverted by other editors. I do not believe I have a case to answer. - ] ] 03:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::You removed the same material four times in twelve hours, Nick. That's four reverts. You and the other guy were two sides of the same coin on this. Nor did you do anything to resolve the conflict on the discussion page. It looks like you had backup from your fellow editors on this - why not simply pass the baton to one of the others? You were in the right on the content, so it's not as if you were going to come out short of support. Heck, I woulda helped you out if you'd asked. --] (]) 03:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	:::Adsitionally,the other editor had been warned about inserting the incorrect info by others, his insistence on reinserting it in the supercarrier page amounted to vandalism - his refusal to discuss on the talk page bears witness to this. Reverting vandalism is not subject to 3RR. In any case I do not agree with your reading of events. - ] ] 04:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	::::On reviewing your edit summaries and sole contribution to the discussion, I find no mention of "vandalism". No warnings, no discussion, no mentions at all. No mention in your reporting of him for edit-warring above. You reverted this guy four times, the last three within an hour, your first appearance on his talk page was to tell him of the discussion here, and even if we accept your interpretation above, you deliberately pushed him over the 3RR limit and reported him here. You've been around a while, Nick, you know better than this. --] (]) 05:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' Though ] broke 3RR, he may have got carried away when responding to ] who made a lot more reverts, and seemed to be editing robotically with no attention to feedback. I don't think a block is necessary but Nick Thorne should use caution in the future. The fact that there are no sources to show the Indian carrier is actually under construction makes the edits of M.srihari hard to take seriously. The says the ] is "still only a concept". Our own Misplaced Pages article on ] says it is "currently in its design phase." Still, Nick Thorne should pay attention to using the term <u>]</u> correctly. ] (]) 18:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	:Advice noted, I'll be more careful on future. - ] ] 22:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

			Editor was and that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning.
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			*], 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)
	# {{diff2\|661317214\|22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	#
	#
	#

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
	Note these span more than 24 hours, but persistent, protracted EW is clear. ] 04:02, 8 May 2015‎
	:Also note that {{user\|79.97.226.247}} is not me. ] 04:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Would welcome other eyes on this page - have documented every edit very transparently on . ] (]) 04:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
	:Having never in my history on this WP been flagged in this way (which is disconcerting to me) would like also to defend myself by pointing out the edit history of the editor whose tags I reverted. . I did not instigate, addressed every edit in talk page, and am pretty sure I followed the rules.] (]) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			# – same
	::], wikipedia is not a forum for the PR that you have inserted at ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			# – same
	:::And therein we disagree, as I do not believe those are 'PR' pages at all, but rather well sourced, neutral and encyclopedic BLPs absolutely meeting notoriety. I am allowed to write or contribute to those, have adhered closely the WPs rules, commented in talk regarding my edits, and expressed enthusiasm for other well reasoned edits towards an improved page. For a few of those pages (some of which I haven't touched for years) I have made stern edits in line with NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Your blanket, cursory sweep of simply tagging pages I have worked on or contributed to is exactly what I reverted. ] (]) 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			# – same
	Which is why I believe a block is in order - it's clear you believe you are entitled to continue removing these tags against consensus. ] 20:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
			# – same, now with PA
	:Against consensus? Um, I think a 'consensus' is the last thing I would use to describe the activity on aforementioned talk pages. ] (]) 02:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
	::Which is again why you need to be blocked. You can't recognize that you're an outlier and repeatedly editing against consensus of 3 other editors. (Not to mention you mostly write puff PR pieces about tech execs) ] 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Bangalore Days}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Bashahikgt}}

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			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.
	# {{diff2\|661358165\|04:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661348116 by ] (])removing sourced content pure vandal"
	# {{diff2\|661288696\|18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}} "removing sourced content"
	# {{diff\|oldid=661231637\|diff=661256369\|label=Consecutive edits made from 13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC) to 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|661253152\|13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661231637 by ] (])anjali menon did't says that nazriya is the lead"
	## {{diff2\|661256369\|14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|661213617\|06:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661052919 by ] (])as per lead the audience have to decide who is lead"

			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)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			: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)
	# {{diff2\|661386058\|09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]]]. (])"

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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	His account is made for vandalism and promotion of his favourite star ]. A hardcore fan. ] (]) 09:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Loham}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Bashahikgt}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|661417256\|14:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661415608 by ] (])Misplaced Pages is not a promotional media, you can promote mohanlal in facebook"
	# {{diff2\|661393763\|10:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661389259 by ] (])fan boy"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|661386058\|09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]]]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|661386286\|09:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (])"
	# {{diff2\|661414322\|14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Vandalism on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|661420866\|15:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Vandalism on ]. (])"

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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Fanboy ] (]) 15:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	:The subject of this complaint, ], made only two reverts, while the submitter made four. According to this evidence we should block the submitter, ]. Perhaps Vagabound will make an offer to wait for a consensus on the talk page before editing the article again. VagaboundWind's edits appear to be promotional, while Bahsahkigt is attempting to trim them down. ] (]) 23:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

	:::Note that i didn't added any promotional content, i just protected the contents vandalising by ], if you investigate you will know the facts. This user is a fanboy of actor ], and is vandalising his rivalry actor ]s biography and film articles. Also he had made highly promotional edits about his favourite actor like a facebook page. I just found it and protected the contents. Just look at his contributions, and you will know everything. Note that i also suspect he is a sock puppet. ] (]) 08:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Battle of Košare}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|91.148.76.220}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|661407352\|13:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|661419257\|14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Resumption of ] ] <sup>]</sup> 15:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	:{{An3\|b\|72 hours}}. If this continues a sock case may eventually be needed, just to keep track of the IPs. ] (]) 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Amiga}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Realamigaman}} / {{userlinks\|AmigaOne}}

	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	: As Realamigaman
	: 1.
	: 2.
	: As AmigaOne
	: 3. ]"]
	: 4.
	: 5.

	Soapbox pushing of some bizarre factual changes to ]. Even without knowing Amiga history in detail, some of these just don't make sense when compared to the outside world (such as the Amiga being introduced in 1979, before its 68000 microprocessor was available). Reverted by four separate editors.

	Some fairly obvious socking to push it further to 5RR.

	:I completely agree, all the edits changed start/end dates without sources, and seem to riddle the article with contradictions. Obvious edit warring with additional sockpuppetry. ] (]) 17:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	:Also talkpage comment seems really weird too, since if they know the person, they'd know that their edits made no sense and introduced obvious contradictions. ] (]) 17:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	::He (they??) is probably only fellow disturbed mind from Amiga community (however, most of us are more sane). Sure, he knew Jay and his real name is Mitchy... To be more serious, his similar edits in other articles: , (as Trueamigaman).] (]) 18:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
	:'''Result:''' ] article semiprotected one month. Both of the probable socks were created on 8 May so this will slow them down a little. ] only made one edit back in March. The user may never log into the same account twice. ] (]) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|MigrationWatch UK}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|89.197.13.252}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u>I'm not sure that this is yet a technical violation of the 3RR, but it is clear that the IP editor has no intention of discussing this on the article talk page, and keeps reverting the removal of material that isn't sourced to a reliable source.<br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected one month. Adding a citation to when asked for a reference isn't persuasive. See ]. ] (]) 23:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|CSI: Cyber}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Whyedithere}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	''' Second Page:''' {{pagelinks\|CSI: Crime Scene Investigation}} <br />
	Previous version reverted to:

	#
	# 3 minutes later
	# 9 minutes later
	# 5 minutes later
	# 4 minutes later
	# 3 minutes later
	# 2 minutes later
	# 2 minutes later

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u> 6 reverts in less than 20 minutes on ] after 8 reverts in less than 30 minutes on ]<br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] (]) 02:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Mockbul Ali}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Samanthader}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|661419221\|14:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "the limited sources that were removed in the earlier edit were those that had unsubstantiated claims. Therefore in line with the clear Misplaced Pages guidance on bios it is entirely reasonable to remove these with details that cannot be substantiated"
	# {{diff2\|661428136\|15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 661420590 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|661520508\|07:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|661520831\|07:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Please see my talk page for full details why the edits to thos page have been made"
	# {{diff\|oldid=661529701\|diff=661540195\|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC) to 11:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|661540077\|11:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Please see my talk page for the reasons for the edits"
	## {{diff2\|661540195\|11:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|661472941\|21:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Have discussed the issue on the user's talk page. -- ] (]) 11:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:30, 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: