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 16:16, 29 August 2015 editBerean Hunter (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users72,802 edits →User:Le petit fromage reported by User:Michig (Result: ): one week← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:52, 19 January 2025 edit undoEvergreenFir (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,713 edits Restored revision 1270327440 by Drmies (talk): MalformedTags: Twinkle Undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~291~~		\|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: declined) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|94.187.8.87}}
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	{{pagelinks\|Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change}}

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	{{pagelinks\|American Petroleum Institute}}

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	{{pagelinks\|ExxonMobil}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	{{pagelinks\|American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity}}
			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) ==
	{{pagelinks\|Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley}}

	{{pagelinks\|~~The~~ ~~Heartland~~ ~~Institute~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|46.217.186.173}}
	{{pagelinks\|FreedomWorks}}<br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|HughD}}

	'''~~Nature~~ of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~'''		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	User HughD is engaging in an edit war to add a particular Mother Jones citation to several climate change related pages. The entry was added nearly verbatim to several articles. It was removed or edited by 4 other editors who objected to the inclusion. The quality of the source is currently a discussion topic on two talk pages without consensus (Aug 19 ], Aug 17th ]) talk pages. Hugh has inserted/reinserted the questioned link 9 times just today (Aug 22).

	'''~~Previous~~ ~~insertions~~ on ~~various~~ ~~pages~~:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1269599524\|13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	] Initial:] Reinsertions:]] - Removed by two different editors
			# {{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:'''
	] Initial:] Reinsertions:(''This insertion by IP address''])]] - Removed by two editors
			# {{diff2\|1269596351\|12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	] Initial:] Reinsertions:]] - Removed by one editor

	] Initial:] Reinsertion:]] - Removed by one editor

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Persistent edit warring. ] (]) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	] Initial:] Reinsertions]] - One editor modified the entry, two removed it.
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] ] 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours) ==
	] Initial:] Reinsertions: ]] - Removed by two editors.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739)}}
	] Initial:] Reinsertions:]] - Removed by one editor

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Asafviki}}
	A warning about edit warring was placed on HughD's talk page Aug 19th ]
	The reasons for objecting to the inclusion are basically the same for all the above articles. Talk page discussions were started on Freedomworks (Aug 19 ]) and The Heartland Insititute (Aug 17th ]) talk pages.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Insertions after issue was raised on talk pages and without consensus'''
	Consensus has not been reached on either discussion page.
	HughD proposed an adition on the Heartland talk page on Aug 21st ] whcih has not generated a consensus for insertion.
	As of Aug 22nd Hugh inserted the link 9 times (this list repeats all Aug 22nd insertions including those above)
	]]]]]]]]]

	'''~~Link~~ to ~~warning~~'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{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:'''
	'''Link to notices'''
			# {{diff2\|1269613702\|14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
	] ] ]

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Comment - There is very clear evidence of wikihounding by multiple editors on these articles. These editors have been stonewalling material they disagree with even when it's reliably sourced and stated by multiple sources. With 4 out of 6 of these articles, reverting editors have never had previous involvement until HughD added material, and then they promptly remove the material he adds. I recommend a serious consideration of boomerang for harassment violations pertaining to ]. Their reasons for reverting range from "looks like gossip to me", to citing false consensus, and then changing the reason to BLP violations. These editors are the ones who've repeatedly reverted Hugh's addition while having no prior involvement on the article over the last 500 edits, which in some cases extend to over a decade:


			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	::] - ] and ]
	::] - ], ], ]
	::] - ]

			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)
	] (]) 01:06, 23 August 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)
	:Nonsense. I agree that I am one of the many editors opposed to Hugh's addition of often completely irrelevant, and almost always undue weight addition of material sourced to opinions of biased sources, but it's not ]ING to check edits of an editor similar to edits found to be improper. — ] ] 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	::{{re\|Arthur Rubin}}, where were the edits "found to be improper," exactly? I've zero desire to wade into this particular content dispute but about this that I can find does not seem to suggest that the edits were "found to be improper." In fact, several other editors are making a pretty spirited defense of Hugh's edits there, and the only people arguing that the edits were "improper" are the same people who pretty obviously followed him there from previous dispute. Perhaps there's another discussion that I've missed? ] (]) 01:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::Well, some of his ''editing'' has been found to be improper, as he is topic-banned from a topic due to (IMO) ]. I believe some of his ''edits'' have been found improper, but it is not worth verifying at the present time. It would only be worth my time researching if there were to be a consequence. And the typo you reverted above has some truth to it; Hugh's supporters have followed him to articles to support him — what's the WP link for following an editor to support his edits? — ] ] 02:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	::::Of course, the elephant in the room is that this is part of the ongoing conflict between editors who accept the findings of the scientific community with regard to climate change and other editors who reject those findings. Each side thinks they're right and the other is wrong. I don't think we're going to resolve that here. I do suggest that accusations of tag-teaming and the like ("Hugh's supporters have followed him to articles to support him") are not helpful unless strong evidence to that effect can be provided. ] (]) 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::::(That last comment, and much of this one, should be on a central discussion page, not here. However, I cannot find such a page.) The assertion that editors follow Hugh to support his edits is as well-supported as the allegation that editors follow Hugh to oppose his edits. And there should be no problem with ''this'' set of Hugh's edits once
	:::::#Enough of
	:::::## The importance of MJ's writers' opinions
	:::::## The expertise of MJ's writers (making them "expert" opinions)
	:::::## The reliability of the article in question
	:::::#and, the proper application of ]
	:::::are established. The "truth" of the epithets, which is what {{u\|Short Brigade Harvester Boris}} seems to be concerned with, is irrelevant. — ] ] 03:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	::::Who are these supporters following me around? From my point of view most days Misplaced Pages feels like me and a few other editors. ] (]) 15:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	Let me point out this interchange by the OP against this same user. ] This was clearly a ] effort against HughD. No notification was given to Hugh until I gave it in my response. The only reason I noticed this effort was because I happen to watch that somewhat obscure page because of past proposals I have made there. I was aware of the situation because I was lured in to the RfC in question at ], posted by HughD--a posting that was being by Arthur Rubin. I obviously thought the invitation to the RfC was appropriate and elaborated to that effect. I think the act to hide it was quite improper. I say this primarily as an observer to this fact but there is a very easy to trace history showing the complaining "me too" group of users Arthur Rubin, capilitalismojo and collect act in concert to gang up on content in many articles. They all appear to be adept technicians at maintaining a certain ] in all the articles they are involved in. That frequently involves trying to remove, alter or hide the kind of content HughD and a few others try to include. I consider that troika with a little help form a few others that can easily be identified from the history of a large group of articles (and probably their own editing histories) to be acting almost as Bill Cosby's lawyers trying to keep information under wraps. So they have come here again ganging up and forum shopping to plead their obviously non-neutral case to anyone who they might ensnare in helping their effort. I would discount any of the complaints of this group on a wholesale basis. Misplaced Pages is about reporting sourced facts. HughD generally is doing a good job of providing facts and sources. Those facts and sources do not necessarily agree with the ]; the POV this group is pushing. So they are using every trick in the book to go after their opposition. 10:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:34, 23 August 2015</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:Your comment regarding forum shopping is incorrect. First, HughD was the editor who suggested I seek input from the Canvassing talk page (] Aug 3rd, "You don't need an ANI posting or an administrator to answer your question, please ask your question at WT:RFC, WT:CANVASS, or WT:Publicising discussions.") Second, it seems that HughD was the one who first suggested forum shopping after telling me I should post there.] ] (]) 17:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	::Of course I never recommended forum shopping to anyone. At a noticeboard you repeated pleaded in vain for administrator attention to what you insisted was a "general" question about policy that was independent of current events, and I suggested a policy talk page. Once at the policy talk page, you could not help yourself but to re-iterate your grief illustrated with copious detail from your noticeboard posting. ] (]) 20:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
	:{{replyto\|Trackinfo}} Thank you for your support in improving our encyclopedia through summarizing significant points of view. Like you, I too was disappointed to see the repeated deletion of RfC notices and updates by an involved administrator of our project; please see ]. Thanks again. ] (]) 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
	Seems this should be moved to ] for review re: all those involved as it is quite obviously not a simple edit warring problem. But, as I stuck my toe in the water on one of the articles, I ain't gonna move or close it. ] (]) 12:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::I agree, the conflict surrounding Hugh, Arthur and others is clearly getting out of hand here. Hugh's been reported to ANI three times in the last month or so (twice by Springee), and Hugh just filed AE filing against Arthur (his second in about the same time frame). There's a long history of animosity and not-so-great behavior on both sides here. FWIW, though, I think there is clear evidence of Hugh being followed around by other editors here, and that may be relevant to how this particular report is handled. Just taking Springee as an example:
	:::: * He Hugh to ], where he has one of Hugh's edits. (, Arthur).
	:::: * He Hugh to ], where he reverted him twice: .
	:::: * He Hugh to ], where he (and Arthur reverted Hugh twice: , after also having him there).
	:::: * He's followed Hugh to various other talk pages: .
	:::: * He's complained about HughD at ANI twice within a very short space of time, and made the edit warring complaint that we're discussing right now.
	:::: * He even at a GA review that Hugh was working on, on an article he's never edited or shown any interest in before, to blame Hugh for article issues and say that the article shouldn't even be "B" class.
	::: All that just over the past couple of weeks. This seems like excessive overlap & following to me - and that's just one the least active of several editors who seem to be following Hugh around after the recent unpleasantness at ] (perhaps for longer, I don't know). I'm not defending any edit warring that Hugh may or may not have done, but the way some editors seem to be targeting Hugh's edits and working together to revert him makes me quite uncomfortable here, particularly given the open animosity which some of these editors have shown towards Hugh in the past. ] (]) 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::*All but one of those are related to the same MJ article HughD was inserting into a number of articles. The result of the previous ANI was a topic block]. In that ANI you said, "I have slowly come around to the view that he is indeed editing disruptively." and "I suggest a formal warning - for HughD (disruptive editing, page ownership), with a block to follow if his problematic behavior does not improve." After the associated RfC was closed he ]ed the editor who ruled against his proposal ] ] (]) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
	::::: As my post there made very clear, my comment at ANI was motivated ''solely'' by Hugh's insistence on replying to damn near every comment made on a specific RFC. That he was topic banned (not blocked) for two weeks for that does not give you license to follow him around from article to article, reverting edits which are clearly not vandalism (often with the help of other editors who also appear to be following him), or to take pot shots at him when a GA he worked on comes up for review. ] (]) 02:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	'''Addressing some comments'''
	*This is not a simple case of editors disagreeing on the topic of climate change. The inserted text quotes the opinion portion of a Mother Jones article that lists what the magazine (or at least the author of the article) calls "the dirty dozen of climate change ". The article does list some reasons why they picked each of the 12. Those reasons would be potentially valid additions to the various Misplaced Pages articles. However, the insertion in question was simply stating that the subject of each article was listed by Mother Jones as one of the dirty dozen of climate change disinformation. The inclusion of an organization on the Mother Jones list is an opinion of MJ alone. Mother Jones didn't set out standards for inclusion so we have no way to know if the list was generated objectively. Even if the list was generated via an objective method that doesn't mean the list is notable. Lists such as Oscar winners and US News' Best Colleges are notable because others make reference to them. That does not appear to be the case with the MJ list. Thus the issue with the insertion is that it is an opinion (]) and not a notable one (]). Others may disagree with this argument and the proper place to settle the disagreement is on article talk pages before reinserting the removed references.
	*The discussion regarding the citation and insertion in question was started on '''two''' talk pages starting on August 17th and 19th.]] HughD stopped the insertions/reinsertions on the 19th and joined in the talk page discussions. He setup a proposal on one talk page seeking consensus to add the reference here ] on Aug 21st. On Aug 22nd, without consensus and against the objections of a number of editors added the link a total of '''nine times''' (listed in the original complaint). This is clearly disruptive editing, not a disagreement about whitewashing or blackwashing a topic.] (]) 17:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	*Editor {{u\|Collet}} quested the insertion on the Christopher Monckton talk page.]. Editor {{u\|Dmcq}} was initially in favor of inclusion but was, I believe, persuaded against inclusion as was being attempted and commented to HughD once engaged in discussion on The Heartland Institute's talk page. He stated, "''I am getting to agree more and more with the idea that you are simply spamming a page of little content. ''"] This is in addition to objections and counter arguments by myself, Arthur Rubin, and Capitalistmojo. This does not prove those who objected are correct or that the arguments put forth for inclusion are flawed. It does say that there was not a consensus for inclusion and thus the reinsertions starting on August 22nd were done after a cycle of insertion, removal and failed consensus. (Please note this bullet point was added subsequent to the previous points) ] (]) 04:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
	{{u\|Springee}} {{diff2\|677154936\|08:53 21 August 2015}} I asked you on your talk page, "Thank you for your recent contributions to ] and ] and their respective talk pages. These two articles were created in late 2005. May I respectfully ask, what brought you to these articles for the first time, 18 August 2015? Thank you." with edit summary "question for colleague." Two hours later {{diff2\|677170003\|you deleted the question}} from a colleague from your talk page, without reply. May I please ask again? Thank you in advance for your reply. ] (]) 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	:*{{u\|Ronz}} gave you an appropriate answer here ].] (]) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SmartLynx Airlines Estonia}}
	{{u\|Springee}} "nine times" Two weeks ago, you successfully wrote me up for not being perfectly even-handed in notifying all of an article's WikiProjects of an RfC, this week it's for conscientiously ]-ing a "dirty dozen" article. No doubt had I not, you would have wrote me up for that, too. ] (]) 22:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
	:*You were given a two week topic block for a variety of reasons including my pair of ANIs.] ] (]) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TG-article}}
	{{u\|Springee}} Thank you for providing an exhaustive listing of my edits this past week. I am an active editor! I understand you do ''not'' like my edits. I understand you do ''not'' like the source, '']''. May I ask, could I trouble you to please categorize the edits in terms of 1RR, 2RR, and 3RR, if any, for the convenience of our colleagues reading this report here on this noticeboard? In the interest of fairness, might it be relevant to note the ''dates'' of the edits in your report, how many days intervened, and which had intervening talk page discussion, which if any were straight reverts and which demonstrated refinement through collaboration in talk page discussion and responding to edit summary comments? Thank you in advance. ] (]) 23:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC) "Removed by two different editors" etc. May I ask, again in the interest of fairness, and completeness, might it be useful to readers of your report to note the identities of the participants? Thank you in advance. ] (]) 21:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:*Your previous requests to have editors jump through hoops of your making resulted in a stern warning from an admin. ] ] (]) 00:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Question for HughD''': It appears you felt you were adding the MJ reference via a BRD cycle. Your insertions around the 17th and 18th on the various articles would be the BOLD change. Other editors objected and reverted the changes (sometimes more than once). The issues were moved to the talk page where you joined the discussions. Why did you reinsert the disputed material on the 22nd when consensus was clearly not reached? Were those insertions supported by the BRD cycle you cited when inserting the material nine times that day (including the reinsertions when the disputed material was removed by other editors)? I see this as the critical issue because adding that material when there is clear disagreement looks like an edit war to me. ] (]) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269668652\|20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
	:I understand you believe ''all'' my edits look like edit warring to you. I understand that once you remove a contribution from a colleague, you expect it to stay removed. I understand that I make edits with which you disagree at risk of block or ban. Your report above has no dates, has identified no 1RR, no 2RR, no 3RR, names no counter parties to the edit warring you allege, and makes no distinction between reverts and refinement through collaboration. In the interest of fairness and completeness, please put some more time in on your report. If you would be so kind as to ask after a specific edit I would share my thoughts. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 13:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269664490\|19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
	'''Requesting Administrative Input''' The edit warring listed above is part of a wider pattern of disruptive editing by HughD. The editor has 3 recent blocks plus the recent 2 week topic edit ban.
	*He is currently abusing the ANI system to attack another editor ]
	*Disruptive behavior on the Donors Trust talk page (insulting/being condescending to other editors)] and the replies of other editors: ]]
	*He appears to be engaged in disruptive editing and warring on ]. On Aug 19th he proposed a draft RfC to insert some contested material ]. Nearly a week later he arbitraily decides to not issue the RfC ] and inserts the disputed material without gaining consensus ]. Editor {{u\|Comatmebro}} removed the material ] which HughD reinserted 11 minutes later ]. HughD did not (as of this writing) address Comatmebro's concerns posted on the article talk page ]].
	This editor has shown a clear pattern of disruptive editing and waring. I would ask that the administrators please address this problem. ] (]) 01:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	::Also be sure to address the wikihounding done by editors listed above.] (]) 08:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269638908\|17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:::The first time you made this claim, administrator Arthur Rubin wrote
	::::''"Nonsense. I agree that I am one of the many editors opposed to Hugh's addition of often completely irrelevant, and almost always undue weight addition of material sourced to opinions of biased sources, but it's not WP:HOUNDING to check edits of an editor similar to edits found to be improper."''
	:::I agree with him on this. There is no evidence of wikihounding. --] (]) 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
	::::You and him need to both read WP policies relating to wikihounding because it explicitly forbids the harassment HughD has been receiving. Also, you're agreeing to a red herring argument. Yes, wikihounding doesn't forbid "checking" other user's edits, but it does forbid and address following editors and reverting their content on multiple articles. There is ample evidence of this not to mention the multiple frivolous reversions, and warnings given to Hugh, which is also a separate part of Wikihounding with ample evidence.] (]) 06:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Please consider the possibility that it isn't the administrator and the editor with nine years experience who don't understand policy, but rather it is you who need to "read WP policies relating to wikihounding". That policy does not say what you think it says. --] (]) 10:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|d}} — this is largely an arbitration or AE issue that's been brought to a largely inappropriate venue. Multiple people seem to disagree on both sides of this set of edits, whether or not the revert history demonstrates so on each page, and there's clearly some advocacy (and/or ]) going on from several of the editors involved in this discussion—and this makes sense, considering the articles at hand cover, what, 3 ARB topics? I've added a couple DS/alerts to the some other people involved in the dispute, while it looks like others already have received one in the last year, so my guess is the next step are 1RRs or topic bans for anyone who continues to edit war or so much as thinks about participating in one. The current report is otherwise relatively stale. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 22:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

			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)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Joint Matriculation Board}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|83.77.136.150}}

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wolf Man (2025 film)}}
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|190.201.157.28}}
	<!-- 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:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{diff2\|1269704227\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269703995\|23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269673354\|20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Reception */"
			# {{diff2\|1269640157\|17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	This user keeps on taking the dates out of the ] article. He/she has now broken the 3RR in just over an hour.
			# {{diff2\|1269704229\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	This user appears to post from many different IP addresses, including ], ] and ]. The user seems to be systematically taking the dates out of many articles about qualifications (, , ). Often, these removals are 'buried' within other edits to the article, though sometimes they occur on their own. They are never referred to in the edit summaries, which are sometimes entirely misleading (or just rearrange the content being referred to as a front to remove the dates).
			# No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	I have tried to discuss this with the user on the Joint Matriculation Board's talk page (links above) and draw the user's attention to this (), but the user has ignored this.
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for a month) ==
	Reverting back is made complicated by the other edits the user does at the same time as removing the dates. To rectify this, my most recent revert was for the dates (and their references) and nothing else (). This was reverted nine minutes later.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Until Dawn (film)}}
	This sort of tiresome behaviour is reminding me why I barely bother with Misplaced Pages. I only got dragged into this because I saw the Joint Matriculation Board article linked to elsewhere and wondered why all the dates had been taken out since I'd read it (I'd never edited the article until now).

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562}}
	] (]) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* {{AN3\|note}} This user is also currently edit warring at ]. <code><b>]</b></code> (]) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* '''Comment''' It's less edit warring than outright vandalism. This user is very persistant. I've given up on ] (for now), where the vandalism started Nov 2014. See also ]. —] (]) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269723705\|01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269722106\|01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269715862\|00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269684805\|diff=1269714293\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269714124\|00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Enough with the vandalism already"
			## {{diff2\|1269714293\|00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* '''Comment''' Thanks for the support. I'm only just discovering the scale of this user's destruction. He/she has, over the last year (and under many different IP addresses), destroyed all the historical information in any articles about British and Irish qualifications and the exam boards that offer them. This deletion is usually buried within other edits (often of dubious quality). Dates are often replaced by phrases like 'recently' or not at (meaning changes happening decades apart appear to be co-current. The user ignores all attempts to discuss the issue, but often says 'you need to provide a solid, credible source for every single statement and number/figure you write'. Despite this, he/she often removes referenced dates (along with much other information). Right now, none of the pages for any of the qualifications have basic information like when they were introduced or the dates of major changes. Similarly, exam board articles have no foundation dates. I have tried to fix a few articles tonight (notably, ], ], ], ] and ]). The dates I have added back in have been heavily (over)referenced. Time will tell whether they will be reverted right back anyway (that does appear to be this user's usual style). Is there anyway of flagging up this vandalism elsewhere? Right now, there's a whole area of Misplaced Pages that is of limited use. - ] (]) 23:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269716711\|00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1269716853\|00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::'''Help!''' The user has now created a brand new account, ]. His/her show that he/she has just gone round and removed all the referenced dates I just added back into the articles (, , , , and ). All edits have misleading summaries.
			# {{diff2\|1269719613\|01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* We edit by consensus */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	::To add insult to injury, he/she then . He/she accuses me of editing warring on ] – an article I have edited twice ever (with the second edit correcting typos in the first). Supervisor365 has done the same to another user because they restored the 3,000 characters Supervisor365 removed without justification.
			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: ].
	::I do not know what to do. How does one report a sockpuppet. More to the point, how does one stop this destructive and bullying behaviour, especially as it is coming from multiple IP addresses and accounts. I have replied on my own talk page, but do not feel able to do anything else.

			The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: ]
	::I cannot put up with this. – ] (]) 00:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

			Regards, — ] ] 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	FYI - ] attempted to contact me yesterday after, I asked him not to remove the dates / alter (vandalise) the statistics I was trying to add to the GCSE, CSE and O-Level (UK) pages, he left an email address in this post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:83.104.51.74&oldid=677977939 ] (]) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|p}} for one month by {{noping\|ToBeFree}} ] (]) 21:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporter blocked 2 weeks) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|General Certificate of Secondary Education}} <br />

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:: A couple more example reversions:
	:: '''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Certificate of Secondary Education}} 2015-08-26<br />
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:: '''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|GCE Ordinary Level (United_Kingdom)}} 2015-08-26<br />
	#		#
	#		#
	#		#
	#		#
	#

	:: Also a , and

	:: Alternatively if a responsible adult has a few min's to spare, and fancies starting their own revertion war, could they please address any of the following issues with the qualification pages, I've left a partial lists on the relevant .

	] (]) 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

	He's back as : ]
	:: '''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Certificate of Secondary Education}} 2015-08-28<br />
	#
	#
	#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	] (]) 12:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no action) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Volunteer Marek<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			{{AN3\|nb\|two weeks}} by {{noping\|ToBeFree}} ] (]) 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	The page are currently subject to active community sanctions (1RR restriction). See ] ] (]) 22:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:I was not aware that there was a 1RR restriction on the article. Now that I am aware of it, I self-reverted . Note that the "3RR warning" that Erlbaeko claims he posted on my talk page is from June, it is for a dispute on another article (where I didn't break any rules) and which does not mention the 1RR restriction.] (]) 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	:I also feel compelled to point out that Erlbaeko is being dishonest here (that's in addition to his false claim that he made a "3RR warning"). He links to three versions of the page trying to make it seem like I reverted 3 times. This is false. Two of the edits were consecutive. I reverted twice, not three times as Erlbaeko is pretending.
	:The revert itself was a no-brainer as the sources being used are clearly non-reliable, and include the '''', which is a far-right blog run by , "an Austrian right-wing journalist and conspiracy theorists" who "openly associates with Neo-Nazis" and a buddy of ]. So, um, hell yeah I removed that junk.] (]) 23:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

	Volunteer Marek has self reverted his most recent revert and seems to intend to abide by the 1RR restrictions on this article. I also note that there's no way for an editor not previously involved in this area to know that this article was even under sanctions - there is no edit notice upon editing the page, or even a notice of any kind on the talk page. ] (]) 23:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
	:It looks like the page was lacking any kind of notice or warning, so I went ahead and added the appropriate notices (edit/talk page) to help prevent the confusion for other editors, as well, in the future. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	::], I like to make wikignomish edits on multiple pages. Is there a convenient way of listing all pages with 1RR restrictions so I can go through the list and make sure they all have notices? --] (]) 23:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::That would be quite useful.] (]) 23:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::(ec) {{Ping\|Guy Macon}} ] would be the way to go. As long as you're manually supervising the edits one by one, you don't need to file a ]. You'd probably want to cross the category listing with the transclusion / included-in listing for the talk pages. You can grab either an admin or ] to help with adding edit notices on the pages themselves (obviously anyone can add the talk page notice). My guess, though, is that someone already ran through and did this when the arb case was closed, so likely only pages created since the ARB close are going to need it. shrug --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 23:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: declined) ==

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

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

			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)
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#

			: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)
	<!-- 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:
	Proof warning was acknowledged and willfully ignored:

			:: {{u\|Isabelle Belato}} has indefinitely partially blocked Janessian from the ] article. ] (]) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours from editing articles) ==
	<u>Comments:</u> Please note that I am not reporting a violation of the 3RR rule here. I am reporting an edit warrior, who made an edit which I contest, and who has specifically stated his intent to continue editing despite my warning that his edit goes against previously established consensus. Not to mention ]. ] (]) 13:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)<br />

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Capitalism}} <br />
	:This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened. A picture was changed on the page in September and I saw it only now. The discussion to change it involved two people, when one asked to change the picture based on false and unsourced information. I reverted the change when I saw it (only now, sorry) and provided a source to prove that Ovadia Yosef, being one o the most important figure in the Jewish world over the last century and the most important Mizrahi Jew of the period had to be on the pictures gallery, in particular when he is by far the most influent and well known figure among all the people who appear on this gallery. Debresser opposed for the sake of opposing, providing no argument, no source, and insulting me without trying to resolve the issue. ] (]) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
			'''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}}
	:# Was that talkpage section not there to solve the issue?
	:# The discussion involved Mr. Sort It Out, me, Off-shell and ran over a month, from September 28, 2014 till October 31, 2014. So if Benjil comes now, he is close to a year too late, and he ''will'' have to show a change of consensus before he has the right to undo my revert of his edit.
	:# Just saying that his edit is incontestable is not enough, and shows he is simply pushing his POV.
	:# I infer from the Hebrew on his talkpage that he is a staunch supporter of this rabbi whom he is adding to this collage, however, he must come to terms with the fact that not all are of that same opinion.
	:: Please notice that it is Benjil's behavior I am reporting here, while I am perfectly willing to continue the discussion on the talkpage, but Benjil must be made to understand that while that discussion is ongoing, he must not repeat his edit. ] (]) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

			POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there.
	:::You "infer from the Hebrew on his talkpage that he is a staunch supporter of this rabbi", that's the most interesting I must admit. Speaking Hebrew means being a supporter of Shas now ? Since I specifically said in the talk page that I do not particularly like this rabbi (nor dislike him), it proves once again that you are not reading. And you omit any discussion about sources, a very interesting point also. By the way an important point I forgot: before I made any change, I made a call for discussion and waited almost a week before implementing the change. Debresser did not answer then but only after I reverted to the previous situation. He also did not try to solve the situation in the discussion, just opposing any change for the sake of opposing and a fake consensus of two people, and in fact only one since Mr. Sort It Out is the only one who had any opinion on the subject. I gave a sources (and can provide as much as needed) and no counter-argument was made, I was in my right to proceed with the change, or more exactly, reverting to the previous situation. ] (]) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:::: Even though 3 editors is not much, it is still consensus. Not to mention that the edit stood unchallenged for almost a year. Even at this moment, after you raised the issue almost a year later, you are the only editor who wants this rabbi in the collage.
	:::: In any case, you have no right to insist on the edit after you see it is being opposed. Again, it is your behavior in the face of opposition and the not unfounded claim of a lack of consensus, that brings me here. ] (]) 16:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::::And still not a word about sources and no argument. "Consensus", you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. There was no consensus. There was one editor who wanted Ovadia removed, you who had no clue on the subject and believed what he told you, and a third who did not discuss the issue. So no, no consensus. And a consensus based on false information and in contradiction to sources has no value. It seems this is just an issue of your pride here and nothing to do with improving the article. ] (]) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::::: You should hear yourself: I had no clue on the subject and believe whatever editors tell me, false information. Why don't you throw a conspiracy claim in for good measure, or say that I am a nitwit? I have a clear opinion on the subject, and it is the same as the consensus opinion. My pride is no more involved than yours, so let's not go there (]). Anyways, your arguments are typical of POV editors, sorry to say.
	:::::: What was that about sources? Man, we are talking about adding a picture to a collage. What do sources have to do with that? ] (]) 19:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|nve}} {{Ping\|Debresser\|Benjil}} be advised that if this continues, both will end up blocked. Seek ] (perhaps ]) --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 00:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Major League Lacrosse}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Cakeane}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|677967878\|16:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Changed to professional league and deleted salaries as that information is no longer current or accurate."
	# {{diff2\|677969538\|16:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)}} "MADE IT CORRECT - STOP CHANGING IT BACK"
	# {{diff2\|677990285\|19:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 677989748 by ] (]) The source you are siting is from 5 years ago, please find a new relevant source"
	# {{diff2\|678022411\|23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 678015866 by ] (]) The Source you are citing is invalid and not accurate per a League Source, change to premier outdoor professional League if you wish and no salaries"

	~~;Diffs~~ of edit warring / 3RR warning:		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|678016447\|23:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Semi-pro or Pro? */"

	~~;Diffs~~ of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	# {{diff2\|678016914\|23:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Semi-pro or Pro? */ minor grammer fix"

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	There is a general consensus among editors at ] that it is Semi-Professional. This is because the sportsmen are not paid enough to go full-time according to a well-cited source. Oftentimes passerbye want to change it to "Professional" for POV reasons ("this is offensive to lacrosse players", "It's definitely professional" etc.) I tried to encourage the user to use the talk page to talk it out with the editors, but he keeps reverting changes despite the ongoing discussion.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Please see article http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323716304578483290272596484 which was updated proving every "passerby" was in fact correct and that the outdated source being cited was incorrect as it was attempted to be explained multiple times to the editor. Source cites "professional league" "professional team" and professional players and is a more current issue from WSJ than was previously used to explain reasoning of incorrect terminology. In fact, the other editor involved thanked me for the new contribution to the correct change. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:I submitted this, not because of the content, rather the way of going about it. Instead of waiting for consensus from editors, you took it into your own hands to continually revert 3 separate editors to push your own (previously uncited) information through, despite my attempt to encourage you to wait for general consensus. I personally have no care one way or the other on if they are actually semi-pro or professional. What I do care about is an accurate encyclopedia designed by a community that works together; not using the undo button like an "im right, you are all wrong" button. If you had presented your citations in the talk page first and talked it through like I had encouraged you to, I would not have put this notice through. <span style="font-family:Garamond;font-variant:small-caps;color: maroon;">Jcmcc</span> (]) 21:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

			I stand by most of my insertions of the chart:
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Talk:European colonization of the Americas}}
			*]
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|JordanGero}}

			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.
	;Previous version reverted to:

			I addressed Avatar317's points in my edit summaries. But he sometimes did not address my points in his 2nd reversions.
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|678145632\|17:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 678086902 by ] (]) Your Rfc was utterly inaccurate; reverted to form that almost all of the editors have already responded to."
	# {{diff2\|678074973\|07:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 678073934 by ] (]) The conversation has begun there; please do not relocate needlessly- it only adds confusion."
	# {{diff2\|677991757\|19:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)}} "/* RfC: Should the word "seize" or "acquire" be used to describe the process through which colonists came to control the Americas? */"

			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)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|678117324\|13:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)}} "/* RFC */ do not change other people's text, threatening to edit war not good"

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

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	See also the warning on August 15th and the discussion on the editor's talk page. There's discussion on the article talk page but he's still changing the RfC to his preferred wording. The earliest diff is one of a series of edits changing the text of the RfC. ] (]) 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	::The user ] worded the Rfc inaccurately after having entered an ongoing conversation between myself and another editor about the issue. All but one of the responses to the Rfc came after my edit of it, and all but my own have sided with ]. This is not necessarily evidence that my version was "better" or more neutral, but it does contradict ]'s contention that the Rfc was changed after most editors had already responded. ] (]) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::::The problem is that your RfC asks an entirely different question, and hence makes it impossible for the closer to know what the consensus is actually about. The other thing is that you hjave blatantly disregarded all guidelines for talkpage behavior, RfC behavior and editwarring - even after having been courteously pointed towards them by another user and an admin.] · ] 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::Well this is embarrassing, I seem to have miscounted. You did however say "if you change it again, I will revert it." You've been reverted as you really can't change someone else's RfC. If you agree not to change it again I'm happy to have this dropped. But you can't go around revising other people's posts, even if you think they are wrong. You've compared your changing the RfC to editors changing text in articles and don't seem to see it as a problem. Oh, and if I've made an error on a subpage of mine, please let me know but don't go around changing my subpages. As for your statement that the RfC was changed after most editors had responded, everyone but you has agreed with Maunus that the word 'seize' should be used - they've all answered no, you're the only 'yes', so it appears they understood the issues. ] (]) 20:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	::::I am aware now that changing the Rfc after it has been posed is not to be done, along with that which you mentioned about your subpages, and will not modify or revert it again. And in regards to most editors who participated in the survey siding with the editor Maunus, I mentioned this to him when he first reverted my reverts of his original Rfc so as to communicate to him that whatever substantive change there may have been, it was not to the detriment of his position (or at least not apparently so). ] (]) 03:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::It has nothing to with being detrimental to my position, the point is that your question is completely different and hence does not reflect my position. My RfC is a GENERAL question about the appropriateness of the word seize which you contended was inherently too loaded to neutrally describe aspects of the colonization. Your RfC is a specific question about whether to use the word seize in a specific sentence. ] · ] 05:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	::::::::The question, from the beginning, was whether the use of the word "seize" was appropriate in a specific sentence, not whether it is an appropriate descriptor for an abstract concept. This is what I meant about you "jumping in the middle" of a conversation between me and Rjensen. The edit of the word "seize" did not happen in some abstract realm; it happened in a specific sentence in a specific paragraph in a specific section of the article in question. Anyways, the issue is resolved. Edit: Or apparently not resolved, given that a suggestion has been made by ] that the current Rfc, given the disagreement over its content, be closed and a new one be opened that better reflects the issue at hand. ] (]) 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' ] is '''warned''' for edit warring on the text of an RfC. Per the above, he has now agreed he "will not modify or revert it again." This editor created his account on July 9. New accounts that are very aggressive run the risk of being considered socks, and this suspicion is not always wrong. ] (]) 14:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Pluto}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|DN-boards1}}

	<!-- 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:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# ~~And subsequent three edits.~~		#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

	<!-- 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:''' none, since this single editor has been reverted by four different editors without time to bring to talk.

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*After I submitted this, the editor has ceased edit warring and . I suggest a block is not necessary, assuming no further reverts. —Alex (] \| ] \| ]) 19:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	*I didn't get the 3RR warning until after the last revert. Apologies. ] (]) 19:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::Fair enough. I saw in the history that the last revert was after I issued the warning so I brought it here, but it may have only been by seconds; the timestamp on both is 19:43. Easy to believe that the editor didn't see the warning. —Alex (] \| ] \| ]) 20:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
	* {{AN3\|w}} (so long as {{User\|DN-boards1}} does not continue to revert; if so, either re-open or grab an admin and point to this thread). Also, DN-boards1, be warned that ] isn't a permit to revert; several editors are in opposition to your change, so you should ] before re-introducing the text or you can still be blocked for general ]. {{Ping\|Ashill}} Indeed; the exact timestamps, in case you're interested, were 2015-08-27T19:43:20Z and 2015-08-27T19:43:50Z (literally 30 seconds difference :P). --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 00:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|In the Beginning There Was Light}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Robin Lakritz}}

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tamerlanon}}
	Previous version reverted to:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1270047251\|17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff2\|1270045995\|17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?"
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			# {{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:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			# {{diff2\|1269972530\|09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{diff2\|1269987649\|10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> I am currently at an impasse as I wish to refrain from edit warring but I have been able to make to headway in my discussions and my arguments seem to go ignored, while the other party seems to have no problem breaking he 3RR, leaving me with few options. As I am relatively new here I do not know of another way to handle this, if I have done anything wrong please inform me and I will do my best to correct the behavior, and if I am wrong about policy please inform me as I think the main dispute here is over policy understanding<br />
			# {{diff2\|1269994020\|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	] (]) 00:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}}. ] (]) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Edit-warring IP ==
	I am sorry for my 3RR mistake. UnequicoalAmbivalence made a bold edit and deleted valuable information with reputable sources. I think he is not being neutral and trying push an agenda. I also feel my arguments are being ignored by him. He should bring additional information from reputable sources but not blanking relevant one because he does not like it or the film. So mediation of a third party would be helpful. ] (]) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	:I find it interesting that you are accusing me of pushing a bias when it seems that you started your wikipedia account with the sole purpose of adding heavily biased information to a single article, which to me seems like a clear violation of ]. Please see ], from which I quote "Misplaced Pages is not a venue to Right Great Wrongs, to '''promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World''', or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization. '''Misplaced Pages cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it'''; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Misplaced Pages"(Emphasis added). Also, in ] "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the '''current level of their acceptance''' among the relevant academic community....'''Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific''', only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, '''should be documented as such, using reliable sources.'''"(Emphasis added) Breatharianism, the subject of this documentary, is clearly established by a vast consensus of the scientific community to be a pseudoscience. All CURRENT scientific studies categorically refute the claims being made. There is no debate about this. The section you added presents material as if this were not the case. It presents controversial studies as if they were widely accepted, and omits all mention of said controversies (For instance labeling of the non-peer reviewed and widely criticized Prahlad Jani Case Study as "Exceptional" in Misplaced Pages's voice). The policy is very, very clear on this point. Also, the directory stating on the webpage for his film that he received an email from someone is NOT reliable sourcing for proof to state the supposed contents of that email as a fact and then to directly attribute it to the claimed sender. This is not verifiable information from a reliable source by any means.] (]) 12:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|nve}} Though if you both continue edit warring, you risk being blocked. Please seek ]. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	:Thank you, I will pursue Dispute Resolution as you suggested. However, would you help clarify for me what counts as a revert so that I do not make this mistake in the future, as I was under the impression from my reading of the 3RR that what I reported was 5 reverts in less than 3 hours, but I have no desire to raise issues when policy has not been broken.] (]) 22:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

			The IP has been deleting sourced information in the article of ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] since 1st of January and edit-warring on the article of ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] and ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]. It appears that the user wants to have everything "Albanian" removed.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: protected) ==
			They also removed "Albanian" from the article of ] and replaced it with Serbian. </nowiki>] As I can't notify IPs about ongoing discussions, I will leave it like that. It appears that the user possesses no will for encyclopedic cooperation. ] (]) 19:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			:{{AN3\|m}} ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Pearl Going}} <br />
			::It's an IP that has no will for encyclopedic cooperation. Since when do we need to open discussions with them? I've seen admins blocking IPs by other users just notifying them on their talkpage. And I did provide diffs. ] (]) 20:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|122.56.208.164}} <br />
			:::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)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|122.56.209.30}}
			::::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)}} ""
	<!-- 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\|oldid=1270003652\|diff=1270044450\|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1270043159\|17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] ([[User talk Sorry, but they don't stand up historically.To claim that stout is a strong version of mild ale is just embarrassing!"
			## {{diff2\|1270044450\|17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1270000487\|12:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Irrelevant unless it's properly sourced"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1263595504\|diff=1269993652\|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269993388\|11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Stout has never been a type of ale, weak sourcing too."
			## {{diff2\|1269993652\|11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Oatmeal stout */Not notable"\|warnings=\|resolves=
			# {{diff2\|1270073178\|19:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Haldraper}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."\|pagename=Stout\|orig=\|comment=See also the reverts at ]. Haldraper has crossed the 3RR in both cases. ]. ] 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)\|uid=Haldraper}}

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks\|Astius}}, {{pagelinks\|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks\|Angelina of Serbia}} <br />
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|187.36.171.230}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> Repeated insertion of inappropriate material into a BLP, repeated over a long period of time; four reverts tonight in three hours. No substantive discussion by the IP, just accusations of vandalism. Article subject is involved in several public controversies; among other problems, article reports her accusations against others as established facts, misrepresenting sources to do so. ] (]) 04:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)<br />
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>]

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|p}} (semi) by someone else --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 21:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 7 days) ==

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' -
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Justin Bieber}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Alvandria}}

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' -, but
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#] "That's absolutely not what it says, if you click through it says even for commercial purposes"
	# {{diff2\|678259846\|08:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)}} "im not in an edit war look at the source its creative commons thank you very much"
	# {{diff2\|678258004\|08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 678255732 by ] (]) Nowhere on that page does it say Getty Images" - ''Please note:'' It did, but ].
	# {{diff2\|678254232\|07:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)}} "It's not an inlicensed photo, it's by author Kevin Winter who is known to publish photographs for public use under the Commons code"
	# {{diff2\|678146548\|17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)}} "More recent picture (LS)"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|678255788\|07:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Copyright violation on ]. (]]])"
	# {{diff2\|678258162\|08:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (]]])"

			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)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			*{{AN3\|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xuangzadoo}}
	Edit-warring adding copyvio image of Bieber using a sockpuppet at Commons. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Comment''' Image license was changed multiple times during the edit-war, including modifying the flicr license to remove the dollar sign with the diagonal line through it, signifying a restriction for commercial distribution. It seems the edit-warring editor has connections to the photographer at flickr as well as the uploader at Commons. Please see also ] at {{u\|Diannaa}}'s talkpage. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	:It looks to me like a case of Flickr washing, as the image is tagged as Getty Images and other places online. I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. -- ] (]) 17:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	::Thank you {{u\|Diannaa}}. Here is also indicating it as a Getty image. Another link . Meanwhile the . Looks like ] indeed. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	]. It also appears it is a repeatedly-deleted copyvio. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:53, 28 August 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.)"
	'''Comment''' Going to such lengths to fake and change the licenses on multiple sites while edit-warring to add this copyvio into Bieber's article needs a block for ] in addition to any reasons for blocking due to the 3RR violation. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 20:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
			# {{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.)"
	*'''Blocked''' for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing, edit warring etc. ] 20:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270039369\|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
	:Thank you Black Kite. All the best. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 20:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
			# "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: ) ==
			# {{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\|Genetically modified food}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Prokaryotes}}

			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. -->

			: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:
	# 00:43, 26 August 2015 First edits, adding block of content about glyphosate (which is not GM food per se; was reverted and under discussion on Talk.
	# 05:51, 26 August 2015 This series of edits aggressively edited contested content about the "scientific consensus" on GM food which has been under discussion for a long time now
	# 00:14, 27 August 2015 This series of edits edit-warred back in content about glyphosate that was still under discussion and made other changes to "consensus statment" section
	# 11:58, 28 August 2015‎ This series of edits introduced incorrect content (about broccoli that is not GMO but created by traditional breeding, and health content sourced from non-MEDRS source) and aggressively edited the "consensus statement" which is highly contested, <u>and included that removed significant sources with a very misrepresentative edit summary</u> <small> included additional dif info via REDACT ] (]) 16:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC))</small>
	# 12:45, 28 August 2015‎ restored controversial edits to "consensus statement"

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269842031'''
	<!-- 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: see ] on editor's talk page where i asked them to please slow down. There are many long discussions on talk page trying to address their edits including ], ] and this new, strangely titled section: ].

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	This is a '''highly''' controversial article. We have so far successfully avoided arbcom and to a great extent, drama boards, but Prokaryotes has been editing very aggressively (and often adding incorrect content), without regard for discussion on the Talk page. There were two mega-RfCs recently and as mentioned above, there is sprawling talk page discussion. Prokaryotes aggressive editing is destabilizing the article - especially their edits to the "consensus" statement which was the subject of one of the mega-RfCs. If everyone who cared about this article edited like Prokaryotes we would have been at arbcom ages ago. Please lock the article to force discussion and please consider a short block for Prokaryotes.

	As an aside, if you check , Prokaryotes has gone on a tear since August 26, aggressively editing other, related articles, raising risks about glyphosate and GMOs or "pro" organic, and arguing vehemently on article talk pages. Each bullet is an edit to a different article (not cluttering this with their Talk comments):
	*
	* +
	*
	*
	* This one added back content that had been removed and was under discussion via yet another RfC, while the RfC is still underway

	I understand that people get passionate about GMOs etc but that is all the more reason for people to exercise restraint, per ]. This is very clear advocacy editing.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Thanks. ] (]) 12:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Jytdog's claim i broke 3RR is in error. Yesterday, Jytdog claimed i broke 3RR. When (]) asked about his 3RR claim and Difs, he did not replied but later retracted his claim. But then another editor(]) came to my talk page and claimed i broke 3RR, . Then both continued, started to make various claims, that i do advocacy or edit with an agenda. Then (]) mentioned that Jytdog and Kingofaces are bullying me for my edits. Then i do advocacy. When I then to provide Difs for his accusations he made more claims, i would "''promoting the goodness of organic'' or ''emphasized the risks of GMO stuff''", as he put it. It appears to me that Jytdog is acting to much like ], and is intimidating other editors who do not agree with his edits. Actually Jytdog did like 6-8 reverts since August 26 at ], some of them questionable and currently discussed on the talk page, examples:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' fefdsvekj evne dv
	*'''Jytdog is removing content without consensus, and without discussion'''
	* he reverts to what can be described per ]
	* he removes content which had been part of the article for month. ()
	* he removes something, again without discussion.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	The various discussions on the talk page at ] all involve Jytdog, and most of the time he argues with other editors about his reverts.] (]) 13:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
			https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Garudam&diff=prev&oldid=1270190529

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />fe gs
	: {{ec}} I will add here, that I have functioned as a steward of this and related articles for a while now. Some consider me a whore of Monsanto etc. They consider as they will - I try to keep POV-pushing from all sides tamped down, and as mentioned, so far have helped keep these articles clear of arbcom and from wasting the community's time with too much drama board action. I am not happy to be here but Prokaryotes has not heeded the requests of me and others to slow down.
			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)
	:That said, here are all of my own edits on that page after Prokaryotes started editing. This shows what I mean by the article "destabilizing" - so many strange edits...
			::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)
	: * 10:31, 26 August 2015‎ didn't fully revert Prokaryotes's change to "scientific consensus" statement but used compromise language that had been worked out on talk after a looooong discussion. Also removed old content made redundant due to new adjacent content added by a third party (sagerad)
			*{{AN3\|nb\|1 week}} ] (]) 15:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	: * 15:09, 27 August 2015 removed inaccurate and redundant content added by yet another editor (drchrissy)
	: * 01:14, 28 August 2015 removed off topic and POV content about patenting of biopharmaceuticals and methods to make them using transgenic animals (??) added by yet another editor (praeceptorIP) - nobody on anyside of the debate has objected to reversion of this strange edit to ''this'' article. Also removed pre-existing off topic content on use of GM animals to produce drugs which was hook for that strange edit. others on talk page had noted that this was off topic.
	: * 12:37, 28 August 2015 reverted Prokaryotes 2nd change to "consensus" statement
	: * 13:11, 28 August 2015 fixed broken link in source.
	: there you go.
	: My primary "ask" here is that the article be locked to drive discussion and stop the recent streak of just weird edits, and secondarily that Prokaryotes be blocked for aggressive editing on this and related controversial articles -again, if everybody edited like Prokaryotes has been doing, we would have been at arbcom ages ago. What ~seems~ to have gotten Prokaryotes all fired up, is that he/she just learned about the IARC re-classifying glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen" back in March and just freaked. (see ] - it was right after that, the aggressive editing began. We dealt with the IARC reclassification across the suite of articles back in March) In any case, if a reviewing admin thinks I should be also blocked, so be it. ] (]) 14:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	::Jytdog's claim my edits are weird or aggressive are in stark contrast to what actually has been done to the page by me (added WHO authority link, removed OR, added study per RS), and how i done it (After his revert went to discuss and RFC, how it should be). Additionally there are several editors who welcomed my edits(,, or here in response to Kingsofaces43 editing my addition ). This self proclaimed steward of Misplaced Pages has trouble with almost any other editor who tries to improve the page (, or ). Jytdog is to attached to the topic of GMO's and Monsanto articles in particular and should be blocked from editing these articles.] (]) 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	::::::You are showing no self restraint, Prokaryotes. I and others keep saying to you that if everyone edited with your aggressiveness we would have been at arbcom ages ago, which you keep not replying to and you just keep on going, as though you are the only editor in WP. I did not call your edits weird - I called some of the other edits weird. ] (]) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::In a which begun first at GMF article, ] stated, "''Jytdog, please focus on the content, not the creator. Stating that ] is abusing WP falls close to a ]''". And later "''You have three different editors saying that it belongs in the article, while you are the sole editor opposing its inclusion. Please stop edit warring the article to your preferred version. If their is an opposing POV, please provide sources, as Praeceptor has done, so the community can properly evaluate this. Second, this is nowhere near COI editing.''" - -Hence, recent problems with editor Jytdog are very common. Maybe the editor should make a break from Misplaced Pages and ask himself why he has so many issues with others. "''I am too angry to write more now''." This guy clearly need to make a break, not pick fights with everyone. ] (]) 16:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
	{{od}} entirely separate (and yes very frustrating) issue related to the edit about patenting biopharmaceuticals and methods to make them using transgenic animals) and one that was ongoing before your disruptions. Nice reference to your ] behavior though. ] (]) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	*I feel strongly that an admin looking at this Jytdog-filed case needs to take a wide view. As Prokaryotes notes, this filing is strongly slanted, leaving out anything that reflects poorly on Jytdog. I urge a thorough reading of the article in question's talk page, at ] which includes my warnings to Jytdog to stop his bullying behavior, along with concerns regarding Jytdog expressed by other editors. The short version: Jytdog has de facto claimed ownership of the page, and many other related pages including ] where he is at this moment involved in an edit war, and ] and other Monsanto-related articles. My history with Jytdog has been such that I banned him from my personal Talk page several years ago, and I have largely made an effort to avoid him since that time, but his recent edit history calls for a preventative block, as I see it, as he is a self-admittedly angry editor lashing out in a number of areas, and clearly in violation of ]. Thanks. ]]] 05:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Battle of Jamrud}}
	* I've had occasion to wonder about Prokaryotes' self-centred edit behaviour. he adds material previously removed as controversial, in the middle of an RfC on this material, long before any sign of consensus or closure. As he was participating in the RfC discussion at the time, he can hardly have been unaware of the due process taking place. In ] about his unilateral adding of disputed content he gave no indication of regret at ignoring procedure, apparently feeling that his own opinion was reason enough to over-ride a spirited RfC. Perhaps he could count to ten or something before jumping into edit-warrior mode. I've also thought that some of his actions were stalkerish, provocative, and aimed at me, suddenly showing up at articles I'd recently edited where he had had no previous contribution. This sort of aggression just leads to disruption all round. --] (]) 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
	* And I have had occasion to wonder about Jytdog's edit-warring and stalkerish behaviour. Very recently, he sent me an Edit Warring template for edits on ] which was quickly judged to be inaccurate by another editor. Jytdog, an editor who claims their main involvement is human "health and agriculture" followed me to an article on ] which they had never edited before and began edit-warring removal of similar material. Indeed, Jytdog is sometimes in such a great rush to edit war that he clearly does not even read the edits he is deleting and is thereby highly disruptive; his competence in this regard might be questioned.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 13:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Noorullah21}}
	Good lord, what a mess. I'm not seeing a technical 3RR here (more than three non-consecutive reverts within 24 hours) but it's clear that the editing environment at that article is fraught. Suggest declining the present case and pursuing action elsewhere. I regret to say that we're almost certainly headed for Arbcom on this topic. ] (]) 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|British Empire}}
			# {{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 being reported: {{userlinks\|N0n3up}}
			# {{diff2\|1270112351\|00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270108346 by ] (]): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk fd gfds page now to be more clear."
			# {{diff2\|1270108346\|23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements. edsgfre dgv
			Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving
			the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed
			the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic
			victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{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:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1269985195\|10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
	# {{diff2\|678394410\|03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 678390672 by ] (]) Reverted to original version. Lets take this to the talk page"
			# {{diff2\|1270115828\|00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
	# {{diff2\|678388307\|02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 678376362 by ] (]) Not redundant, less specific as a matter of fact. Please explain why it's so"
			# {{diff2\|1270117437\|00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
	# {{diff2\|678365158\|23:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 678363821 by ] (]) I don't see anything wrog with it.. why delete it?"
			# {{diff2\|1270123153\|01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
	# {{diff2\|678248283\|06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 677361960 by ] (])"
			# {{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>
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|678390771\|02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring. (])"

			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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			: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.
	See ].
			:“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”
	;<u>Comments:</u>


	N0n3up also attempted to ] two other editors to join in the edit war and ] to the attempt by myself and {{user\|JuanRiley}} to remove redundant phrasing. ''']''' 04:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::I didn't mean to vex you to the point that you had to take it to the . But if you reffered to my actions and my summoning of other users.. I summoned Sitush and Twobells since Sitush was familiar with me in a previous discussion in the same article and Twobells just happened to be the last person to edit the talk page to get an outside opinion, not to "canvass" or use backup to my advantage as you accused of doing. And saying: ''And don't get me wrong if you are one of those staunchly patriots whose edit was patriotic-oriented'' is not a personal attack whatsoever, I was trying to give a figurative concept of someone who edits out of patriotic purpose and there is nothing of a personal attack in that, and notice the ''And don't get me wrong'' part which would make your claim of a personal attack more invalid than it already is. And also, I'm not denying that America was catching up to Britain economically, I simply stated that removing the ''some of'' part of the sentence would be too general, that's all. And to think it would all be a short talk. (] (]) 05:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

			: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)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			::A. The instance you pointed out wadf gvdfs an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..)
			::B. When the individual hasn't concluded their ], you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind you ] is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until a ] can be made. The burden of proof is on you for ] (you also kept readding a non ] source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed out ] as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory. ] (]) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I also told said where per ], it's per them to seek Consensus. ] (]) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I reverted my edit as of now per the edit summary. (the last edit prior to that is the person working on our ]. ] (]) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This seems like ], but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one quoting: {{tq\|I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans"}} which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes. ] 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? the ] is being discussed.
			::::You've completely ignored this.
			::::
			::::
			::::
			::::
			::::Scroll down! (on the talk page). ] (]) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did.
			:::::@] has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless. ] (]) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::'''Both of us did''' No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through ], don't confuse it with ]. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of ]. ] 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::What?
			:::::::"No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former.
			:::::::"Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page.
			:::::::'''"The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT."''' - Are you insinuating @] is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about.
			:::::::A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.)
			:::::::B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?)
			:::::::C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?
			:::::::I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page? '''"The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."'''
			:::::::Flinging around accusations of Meatpuppetry clearly breaches ]. ] (]) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::You also did revert it three times.. Shown here:
			:::::::: (First time)
			:::::::: (Second time)
			:::::::: (Third Time) ] (]) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. ] 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?)
			::::::::::I didn't revert four times to break 3RR. Where are the diffs of me reverting you four times? ] (]) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Microsoft Surface}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TheHoax}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|StopAntisemitism}} <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4}}

	Previous version reverted to:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
			w dfedfe
			'''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. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts: (adds Surface RT, parenthetical disambiguation, and reverts changes to simplify the model comparison chart because it has enough context)
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	Older:
	#
	#
	#
	More (he keeps changing it even though we have reached consensus):
	#
	#
	#

	<!-- 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: ] and ] and ]

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Not only have we reached a consensus, but TheHoax is blatantly changing the page to fit his preference. ] (]) 07:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* '''Comment''': {{u\|TheHoax}}'s most recent behaviour has been particularly disingenuous. Instead of continuing to make his case on the talk page or yielding to consensus, he has chosen to edit the ] article (and ] ]) in a manner not consistent with the ]; specifically, he is misrepresenting that viewpoint as "use the phrase 'first generation Surface' everywhere" (), is editing articles accordingly (in some cases producing ridiculous constructs like "original ARM-based first generation Surface" ) and then using the result to present his own viewpoint (to use "Surface RT" everywhere) as superior. In reality, all editors in support of the prevailing viewpoint (that is, everyone but {{u\|TheHoax}}) have agreed that article content should use simply "Surface" whenever possible and only employ disambiguating phrases where necessary (i.e. when the intended subject is not obvious from context). Such behaviour is essentially a strawman tactic and thus unconducive to the overall goal of improving the article. ] (]) 09:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

	'''~~Page~~:''' ~~{{pagelinks\|Edward Snowden}}~~ <br />		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Gazprompt}}

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

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

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

			Editor was and that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning.
	<!-- 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 ANEW notice posted to user's 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:

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	--] (]) 08:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Some of the content was trimmed per consensus, since the page already is to long. Subsequently the to a new article, which Gazprompt edited on August 27. Gazprompt also did not respond at the talk page about his edits.] (]) 09:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}}. Please see also ].--] (]) 12:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Conor Benn}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GiggaHigga127}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Leicester}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Le petit fromage}}

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

	~~Previous version reverted to:~~		# – same
			# – same

			# – same
	<!-- 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. -->
			# – same, now with PA
	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: . See also edit summaries.

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	] initially changed both the IPAC-en pronunciation and added an unsourced 'local' pronunciation to the article, which was incorrect. I reverted as neither one was supported by sources amd I added a source for the IPAC-en that I found in Mirriam-Webster. They reverted, removing the source, but then changed the 'local' pronunciation to a slightly different, also unsourced version. This was reverted by ] who indicated in their edit summary that Le petit fromage needed to source the change or leave it alone. Lpf reverted agin, removing the source, claiming that the sourced version was unsourced and that their version, for which they had provided no source, was sourced. I reverted this as clearly disruptive and warned Lpf for edit-warring. Lpf reverted for a fourth time, claiming that I was refusing to discuss it when in fact the only discussion has been started by me on their talk page, to which they responded only with insults. Lpf then added a comment on their talk page () calling me a 'cunt'. --] (]) 09:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

	~~Lpf~~ ~~has~~ ~~continued~~ ~~the~~ ~~attacks~~ on ~~his~~ ~~tak~~ page: ~~. --] (]) 13:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)~~		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Another editor removed the personal attack and Lpf reverted them: . --] (]) 14:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
			User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the ] and ] divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, ], says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has ''notably'' competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was ] for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.

			As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|blocked\|one week}} for both edit warring and ]<br /> — ] ] 16:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
			:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:52, 19 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

I stand by most of my insertions of the chart:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

Edit-warring IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: ds fewdv

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

erg eia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've completely ignored this.

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

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

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

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

What?

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

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

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

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

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

C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?

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

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

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

(First time)

(Second time)

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

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

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

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

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

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

ge gre gmitism&diff=prev&oldid=1270226516

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: