Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:35, 22 October 2015 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,383 edits →User:AngryMeditations reported by User:Jeppiz: blocked 31 hours (using responseHelper)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:07, 19 January 2025 edit undoJayBeeEll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers28,228 edits Adding new report for Logoshimpo.Tags: Twinkle Disambiguation links added 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}] ] <!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 297 |counter = 491
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|94.187.8.87}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Truth (2015 film)}} <br />
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gothicfilm}}
#
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
# (<small> w/o hidden intermediate revisions</small>)
# )
#


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine ] concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ] (]) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
:{{AN3|p|three days}} by {{u|Randykitty}} ] (]) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion link:
::{{ping|Daniel Case}} The editor has with no participation in the Talk page discussion using a ]. Now will you please fulfill my request that they be blocked instead of just temporarily preventing all editors from editing the article? ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I wasn't the one who protected it, as noted. But I'll look into it. ] (]) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::They shan't trouble you again. At least not on that article. ] (]) 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User has reinstated controversial info (of which its adherence to ] AND ] is disputed) in the article of a just-released film soon after his edits were reverted and when discussion (which he has participated in) has only begun. User has recently done the same thing at another article, except under discussion that he's disagreed with while discussion is still open and set to continue. This is at odds with ] etiquette and disruptive. The aforementioned controversial/disputed content remains in the article because he has reinstated it and I won't restore the previous version to not violate 3RR and because discussion is open. ] (])
*Only two reverts are listed. Is this article under a 1RR restriction? ] ] 13:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
:No, not that I'm aware of. Reported Edit warring, not a 3RR violation, which would only happen if I'd reverted again his restoring of currently disputed content. Like I said, not doing that to avoid a 3RR issue, even though the disputed version remains as he'd restored it without waiting for recently-opened discussion to go beyond two posts (his & mine). My concern also is he's done it back to back during two article discussions - restoring or removing content that is still under discussion, disrupting the process and disregarding WP:BRD etiquette. ] (]) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Aubrey Plaza}} <br />
:], added two more diffs (, ) - more edit warring from Gothicfilm, restoring ], ], redundant quotes, and undue weight favoring lengthy negative commentary, disregarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV discussed on talk page at length). ] (]) 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ibeaa}}
:Added another - restoring redundant and WP:UNDUE quoting, close paraphrased & a plagiarized statement. (). Another editor in the talk page agreed, with "You're right, there are some unnecessary long quotes and redundant phrasing...So it could use some tightening." ] (]) 03:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::This is misleading. The quote was already trimmed before Lapadite put in these latest additions (well over 24 hours later), so the other editor ]'s concern was already addressed. The rest of the quotes belong, as explained on the Talk page. Lapadite put in other material less important, yet complains about UNDUE. - ] (]) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, your excessive and redundant quoting was , . I a redundant quote plus close paraphrasing and bit of plagiarism brought up on the talk page. And again, you . ] (]) 04:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
::::More misleading statements. As anyone clicking on it can see, the second dif just above did not put in any more of a quote. It was a clarifying copy edit. The third dif features an edit summary by Lapadite that claimed ''per talk 2-1 agreement'' when the Talk page had no such agreement on the edits he was making - as I point out in the fourth dif. Apparently Lapadite doesn't think anyone will take the time to look into this beyond what he claims. - ] (]) 04:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Gothicfilm did recently break the 3RR on ] and currently appears to be using an IP to edit war on ].--] (]) 20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#


:This from the long term genre warrior Taeyebaar. Believe it or not, there are other people who disagree with you and revert you. Many others have reverted your genre changes, including in this case. What that IP did on October 16, 2015 was something I agree with, but it was not me. The new IP today may or may not be the same person, but again, it was not me. However Taeyebaar himself admitted socking in precisely this manner in the past. I have never done it. Taeyebaar has a record of accusing editors of socking when more than one disagrees with him, and he has been warned about that in the past. Also note that Taeyebaar just put in the same disputed genre change three times in a row, despite having no consensus and having been repeatedly warned against changing longstanding primary genres to his preferred subgenres. - ] (]) 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No violation on ]. <s>Gothicfilm is reminded to act with decorum.</s> Closing &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 21:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Another rv, ignoring talk points, restoring close paraphrase, extraneous quote, and previously removed overlink, . ] (]) 23:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Second Avenue (IND Sixth Avenue Line)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|184.14.61.182}}


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|686575239|23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686575121 by ] (]); pot meet kettle"
# {{diff2|686574673|23:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686574631 by ] (]); revert vandalism, again"
# {{diff2|686574536|23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686574454 by ] (]); to add this info you must provide a source, not the other way around"
# {{diff2|686561090|21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686560782 by ] (]); still wrong"
# {{diff2|686560593|21:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "minor formatting"
# {{diff2|686540047|19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "speculation"
# {{diff2|686502803|14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686380986 by ] (]); unverifiable speculation"
# {{diff2|686371027|19:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)}} "All tracks are in service"
# {{diff2|686366848|18:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686366714 by ] (]); still wrong"
# {{diff2|686366453|18:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686366197 by ] (]); prove it; that the center tracks are not in-service"
# {{diff2|686366097|18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686365876 by ] (]); revert vandalism"
# {{diff2|686365401|18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686043487 by ] (]); all tracks are used by trains in service; trains on the soutbound express track don't open doors to the other express track"


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Timur}}
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|686365991|18:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)}} "cmt"
# {{diff2|686366269|18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)}} "General note: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|686561123|21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tamerlanon}}
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
: See above (protracted discussion on user talk page).


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
I have tried to engage with the user on their talk page, but they keep reverting and asking me to provide a source for their own unsourced content. According to the ], various subway track maps around the web, and official signage, there is no service on the express tracks, but the user keeps insisting otherwise. They claim to be "reverting vandalism" when in actuality they are adding unsourced content. I admit to breaking 3RR as well, so I am amenable to any penalty that I may get as well. ] (]) 23:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270047251|17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was born in 1336, it is impossible to be in 1320"
:Both editors blocked for 24 hours. That was about 8 reverts each within 24 hours. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 07:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270045995|17:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur's Birth Date is 1336 If You Say 1320 Source?"
# {{diff2|1270040416|16:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
# {{diff2|1269989123|11:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Discussion: He was born in 1320. Give a source?"
# {{diff2|1269974575|09:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1269974278|09:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Timur was in his 70s in his last years before his death. It is impossible for him to be over 85 years old."
# {{diff|oldid=1269967855|diff=1269969911|label=Consecutive edits made from 08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1269968118|08:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|1269969911|08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1269966433|08:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: both blocked) ==
# {{diff2|1269972530|09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
# {{diff2|1269987649|10:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Shooting of Samuel DuBose}} <br />
# {{diff2|1269994020|11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Birthdate */ ping"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mandruss}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
*{{AN3|b|72 hours}}. ] (]) 17:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


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


The IP has been deleting sourced information in the article of ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] since 1st of January and edit-warring on the article of ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] and ] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]. It appears that the user wants to have everything "Albanian" removed.
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
They also removed "Albanian" from the article of ] and replaced it with Serbian. </nowiki>] As I can't notify IPs about ongoing discussions, I will leave it like that. It appears that the user possesses no will for encyclopedic cooperation. ] (]) 19:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#


:{{AN3|m}} ] (]) 20:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- 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 -->
::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)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
:::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)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
::::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)}} ""
<!-- 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|oldid=1270003652|diff=1270044450|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
## {{diff2|1270043159|17:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] ([[User talk Sorry, but they don't stand up historically.To claim that stout is a strong version of mild ale is just embarrassing!"
## {{diff2|1270044450|17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|1270000487|12:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Irrelevant unless it's properly sourced"
# {{diff|oldid=1263595504|diff=1269993652|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1269993388|11:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Stout has never been a type of ale, weak sourcing too."
## {{diff2|1269993652|11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Oatmeal stout */Not notable"|warnings=|resolves=
# {{diff2|1270073178|19:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Haldraper}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."|pagename=Stout|orig=|comment=See also the reverts at ]. Haldraper has crossed the 3RR in both cases. ]. ] 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)|uid=Haldraper}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
<u>Comments:</u> The editor believes he's allowed to edit war to return to a previous version, or to disrupt a discussion he refuses to engage in. ]. ] (]) 03:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)<br />


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks|Astius}}, {{pagelinks|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks|Angelina of Serbia}} <br />
:The OP has been disruptive at this article since they arrived there about an hour ago. Their lack of Misplaced Pages knowledge is quite apparent in threads on their talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page, but their competence is greatly surpassed by their aggressiveness. This complaint was filed after I reverted their second attempt at , which stems from the dispute about gun model. They had no interest in this content except to make a point in that dispute, and I have referred them to WP:POINT several times on talk pages and in edit summaries. I was close to going to ANI with a DE complaint. As this editor is apparently low-experience, I'm not inclined to urge a ] sanction, but this complaint is completely without merit. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 03:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|187.36.171.230}}
::I strongly dispute that there is any disruption created by asking for sources. But even if that were the case, there's no ] exemption for the reverts that Mandruss has made. FWIW, the editor invited me to resolve this problem by going to a noticeboard. So here we are, per his request. ] (]) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
::Also, the editor Mandruss has made false accusations of edit warring by others. He does not seem to have read the actual policies in question, while making aggressive threats based on his mistaken interpretations. ] (]) 03:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|Mandruss}} you have violated ]. Why do you say "this complaint is completely without merit"? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:''' Christianity in Kosovo: , Astius: , John Koukouzelis:
If one looks no farther than 3RR, I'm as guilty as sin; will an admin please do your duty and block me. But I have been told by experienced users in public talk venues that we look deeper, into context. In my limited exposure to this page and ANI, it seems we do just that.<br />So here is the context as I see it. The OP will no doubt have a response, but I avoid unproductive pissing matches and will not have any further comment here unless requested by someone else.<br />
#The OP, who I will call 2602 for short, added content about the gun model wth the meaningless edit summary "add".
#I reverted per BRD with the meaningful edit summary "relevance?".
#At this point, it was established that 2602 wished to add content, and that the edit was a disputed edit. 2602 could have and should have opened a discussion in article talk. Instead, they re-reverted with "relevance is obvious - it's the alleged murder weapon". This relevance is not at all "obvious" as their edit summary claimed. At this point I began to suspect that 2602 does not know what "relevance" means.
#A brief edit war ensued.
#2602 belatedly opened a discussion in article talk. In their opening post, they asserted that NPOV requires inclusion of this content.
#I failed to see what NPOV has to do wiith inclusion of the model of this gun, so I asked 2602 to elaborate. I also tried to explain relevance as "bearing on the case".
#At this point, a good faith response would be to (1) explain exactly what NPOV has to do with it, or (2) drop the NPOV argument. Instead, 2602 simply doubled down on NPOV without explaining it. They demanded that I explain how NPOV justifies omission, after I had stated that I don't see how NPOV has anything to do with it. They also referred to other items of information in the article, implying that I cannot oppose the gun model on relevance grounds unless I also oppose those other items.
#They linked to the article ] since I previously used that word to describe the disputed content. They asked me whether my use of the word meant that I was calling the gun model "false or spurious information", since they saw those words in the first sentence of the article. Had they read on for two more sentences, they would have seen this: "...the term...has assumed other meanings, particularly being used to describe ''a brief or trivial item of news or information.'' (emphasis mine) Or, they might have just used their knowledge of English vocabulary to deduce what I probably meant by that word. At this point, I was suspecting that 2602 was just being argumentative for the sake of argument, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. This is not good faith debating in my book, and I was beginning to become frustrated.
#Time after time, I asked 2602 to explain the applicability of NPOV, and they just kept repeating that without explanation.
#I gave specific examples of what would be relevant.
#2602 re-asked the questions I had previously answered, indicating that they were not listening to what I was saying. This was clear evidence they were simply being argumentative, which is disruption of article talk.
#Meanwhile, more argumentativeness and obtuseness was occurring on our respective talk pages. I won't detail that, but it's there for anyone to see and evaluate. Note especially 2602's logic (illogic) around staying off user talk pages.
#2602 demanded that I cite policy for the omission, ignoring the fact that they had not shown any policy basis for the inclusion (beyond simply throwing the letters NPOV at the wall). They asserted that my argument was ], ignoring the fact that I had previously stated that my objection was on relevance grounds, which is clearly more than ].
#2602 opened a separate discussion challenging two other pieces of information which they consider irrelevant. This was ] behavior, as they had no interest in that content until they needed to make a point in the gun model discussion. We don't do this.
#And so it went like that. After being referred to ] several times, 2602 ignored that and twice attempted to make POINTy edits related to that other content. I reverted both because they were POINTy.
#Throughout, 2602 showed no desire to collaborate in good faith, preferring instead to act dodgily and manipulatively, repeatedly missing or ignoring points, making ridiculous assertions in response, and responding to references to ] by doubling down on their POINTy behavior. To top it off, they then file an edit warring complaint when their POINTy edits are reverted. If one set out to be as aggravating as humanly possible (read disruptive), I think it would look a lot like this. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 08:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
:It's a content dispute, pure and simply. I'm not seeing anything particularly manipulative beyond that, although it may have appeared that way to you because you have a stake in the article. Please remember that ] is a bright line rule. I'm closing this with a 24 hour block for both of you. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
::I didn't edit war. The description of events above is highly inaccurate. I only made a single revert. ] (]) 08:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
::Although you did not actually violate 3RR, you were edit-warring and contributed towards this situation. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
::And blocked this new IP too. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
The block of {{u|Mandruss}} needs to be reviewed. This is an excellent editor with an impeccable record being blocked for doing his job as a conscious editor. This block is not deserved at all. I request a formal review of this block which was not warranted given the circumstances. - ] ] 03:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
# </nowiki>]


... and for an editor with exactly they are quite familiar with AN/3RR... Can anyone see what I am seeing? This was a clear case of a disruptive editor and it needs to be taken into consideration when editors like that post requests for blocks for long term and dedicated editors such as Mandruss. ''' Admins have to think of the project, and not just follow rules blindly''' - ] ] 03:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Adding sourced, relevant, neutral information is not disruptive. Deleting it repeatedly with no policy reason ''is'' disruptive. That's why there's a rule against it. User:Mandruss has made it clear that he does not understand Misplaced Pages policy. He believes, for example, that he can make unlimited reverts in order to preserve the ''status quo'' of an article. I'm sure he's a good editor in some ways, but he has exhibited ownership of articles. Also, I do have more than 13 edits - this IP scheme rolls over every day. I have no control over that. ] (]) 05:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
::::2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143—I'm just curious—why haven't you registered an account? ] (]) 12:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, the 'Captcha' test gets old fast. ] (]) 13:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 does not have any reputation to lose and Mandruss does have a reputation to lose. Edit warring does not take place on a level playing field, not between 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 and Mandruss. ] (]) 13:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' -
;Page: {{pagelinks|IKON (South Korean band)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|36.81.14.29}}


'''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:
# {{diff2|686613747|05:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* M.net's M! Countdown */"
# {{diff2|686601115|03:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Awards */"
# {{diff|oldid=686542952|diff=686545056|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC) to 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|686544666|19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|686544863|19:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* List Of TV Appearances */Important to put in this page. Dont delete"
## {{diff2|686545056|19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* List Of TV Appearances */Just delete unnecessary comment."
# {{diff2|686536353|18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|686519652|16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Members */"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|686601237|03:22, 20 October 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}}
Relentless edit-warring. BLP violations. Adding unsourced positions, height, blood type etc. and other trivial information. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
:Blocked 31 hours &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Jack Monroe}}
# {{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.)"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|82.41.251.96}}
# {{diff2|1270041541|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
# {{diff2|1270039369|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1270041824|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
# {{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>
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|686354691|17:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)}} "rv vandlism"
# {{diff2|686404406|23:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Noteable information. No agenda. RVV, 3RR. Arbitration."
# {{diff|oldid=686487257|diff=686573321|label=Consecutive edits made from 23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC) to 23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|686573174|23:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "rvv x4, 4rr, Birth name mentioned, multiple times IN HER OWN BLOG. Stop vandalising, or go to arbitration if aggrieved"
## {{diff2|686573321|23:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)}} "RVV"
# {{diff2|686681024|17:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)}} "please do not remove pertinent, accurate and formerly cited information. Let's take this to arbitration as it seems no consensus can be reached."


All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|686635869|09:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"


:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
# {{diff2|686661103|14:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Use of former name in article */"
:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


== Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week) ==
;<u>Comments:</u>
:Hasn't violated 3RR yet, but certainly heading in that direction. I have warned the user. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 19:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|SpaDeX}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garundam}}


'''Previous version reverted to:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaDeX&diff=prev&oldid=1269842031'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Warsaw}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Marmiras}}


'''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. -->
# 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


Previous version reverted to:


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


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


'''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:


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' fefdsvekj evne dv
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
* User believes he knows ''better'' than what's written ''out there''. – More and more ]ing in summaries with every next revert. '''<font color="darkblue" face="Papyrus">]</font>''' <font style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">]</font> 17:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
::Additional reverts bring the current count up to four reverts for today; a couple of the links above were from last week. Editor is quite tendentious, and just does not understand policy - and refuses to engage in discussion - just long-winded and impolite edit summaries. Latest addition needs to be changed as it is a combination of original research and sourcing Misplaced Pages, but I have two reverts under my belt already - and the two times I have been blocked it was for making a third reversion of a tendentious and POV editor. Nope, didn't break ] - but got blocked anyway. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 19:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*Blocked &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 19:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Lady Iris Mountbatten}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />fe gs
df d
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|92.29.186.251}}
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)
<!-- 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. -->
::Please see . Looks like a troll IP to me, making personal attacks. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nb|1 week}} ] (]) 15:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Battle of Jamrud}}
<!-- 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|Noorullah21}}
<!-- 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:''' ds fewdv
<!-- 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> <br />] user is repeatedly inserting unsourced contentious material into the article, edit warring, ignoring repeated warnings to stop, and failing to use talk page. ] (]) 19:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1270170387|07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270112351 by ] (]): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
# {{diff2|1270112351|00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270108346 by ] (]): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk fd gfds page now to be more clear."
# {{diff2|1270108346|23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements. edsgfre dgv
Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving
the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed
the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic
victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff2|1270110872|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
*Blocked &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: discussed elsewhere) ==
# {{diff2|1269985195|10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
# {{diff2|1270115828|00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270117437|00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270123153|01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270124950|01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270128846|01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270130305|02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270131478|02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1270133699|02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of rapid transit systems in Pakistan}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mohsin17}}


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)
<!-- 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. -->


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


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


:It seems 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)
<!-- 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 -->
::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..)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
::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)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
:::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) ==
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|StopAntisemitism}} <br />
Please review the posting to ] for community feedback regarding this issue at: ]
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
There are a litany of requests at ] going as far back as two years ago, requesting that Mohsin17 respect our ] and related policies. This editor has now taken to edit warring rather than collaboratively discuss the issues, those issues being repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced content to Misplaced Pages. I have disengaged from this article completely on 9 October 2015‎ and Mohsin17 continues to revert any and all changes by other experienced editors to their preferred version. We as a community have been very generous but at this point it does not seem that this person respects our editorial policies or has any interest in working toward achieving any sort of consensus. Please do not hesitate to ping me or contact me on my talk page if clarification is requested. Regards, 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
w dfedfe
:Lets keep the discussion in one place, shall we? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 07:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::'''Result:''' Being discussed at ]. ] (]) 15:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
#
#
#
#


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Craig Joubert}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Aircorn}}


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


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


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
*{{AN3|b|2 weeks}} ] (]) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
In addition to the clear 3RR violation, the user is also engaged is massive edit warring with several other users at the same page. Here are some additional diffs from the last 48 hours of Aircorn reverting what almost any other user adds, showing a serious ] problem in addition to the edit warring. , , , , , , , , ] (]) 08:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
:<s>Not quite a clear 3RR violation as those last two diffs count as one revert (no intervening edits).</s> Also the editor has not reverted since the warning on their talk page. A block may be appropriate but I'm inclined to wait for a response from ]. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
::Struck partly. Partly confused because the times you gave on the diffs were not correct. Still analysing ... &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
::It is unclear to me whether the first diff is a revert. (If it is, which edit does it revert?) Anyway Aircorn is certainly on three and may have exceeded it. Awaiting comments from others. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 08:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Aircorn has not "had to" revert as other users have chosen not to edit war, that does not diminish the 3RR violation. And yes, the first diff is definitely a revert, reverting this addition . So Aircorn is most certainly on '''four identical reverts in less than 10 hours'''. ] (]) 08:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
::Just my 2 cents – ] reverted edits which significantly threatened the ] of an article. The page has been subject to ] recently and is currently semi-protected (just to illustrate that there is currently ill-feeling towards the subject). In my opinion, it's ] much rather than ]. ] (]) 08:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Even if that were true (and I don't think it is, Aircorn has not even mentioned BALASPS), being right is not an excuse for violation 3RR. ] (]) 08:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
*I'm about to go to bed so won't be able to participate again in this for a while. That information is clearly a misrepresentation of the source I explained how . It is a BLP and I was under the impression that 3RR did not apply when removing incorrect information from BLPs. As to the sequence I am not sure who introduced it or when it was introduced, the article has been edited heavily recently. I removed it when I noticed it and have since been involved with tit for tat removals with {{u|woovee}}. I suppose 3RR depends on whether the first deletion is counted as a revert. A discussion is on the talk page and a few other editors are there so hopefully we can work through it. BTW I have not reverted since the warning. ]&nbsp;] 09:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
**Not accurate, I'm afraid. We could argue how good the source is (though I'd say BBC is a good source), but it is inaccurate to call it "incorrect". I'm not sure who introduced it first either, but I ''am'' sure you violated 3RR by removing it four times in a few hours. ] (]) 10:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No other administrators have chosen to comment, so I am going to close this report now. Aircorn has exceeded 3 reverts so could easily be blocked within policy. In this instance I am declining to do so for the following reasons.
#He/she stopped reverting the first time they were warned about it.
#There seems to be no pattern of edit warring with this user. (I did search the user talk archives for previous warnings.)
#As commented by TheMightyPeanut above, the edits made were not egregious and may actually have improved the article depending on your point of view. (This does not excuse the edit warring in any way.)
Aircorn is strongly warned not to edit war in future, and advised that such leniency will likely not be applied in a future instance. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Next Danish general election }} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Thomediter}}


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


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.
<!-- 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: and the previous unsanctioned incident, '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
*], 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)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
* Current incident
# (and again, policy quoted inappropriately in the edit summary since there was no original research involved in reading the source)
# (edit summary shows they still haven't read the very policies/guidelines/essays they quote, as asked numerous times)
# (partial revert; ''now'' the editor tells others to "refer to the talk page", after ignoring it consistently)
#
#
#
* Previous incident
# (note editor neglected including edit summary on 4th revert)
#
#
#


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor Benn}} <br />
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|GiggaHigga127}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> This is about reiterated section blanking of a . <s>There is not yet a breach of ] within the current incident</s> I believe ] has now been breached; in any case I reckon there was on the previous unsanctioned incident, and the situation is ongoing with the editor after and after discussion that happened (for some reason) . I have reported this before 3RR took place also because I believe it's a case where there may be concerns about ] and ] among others. <br />
# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
# – same
# – same
# – same
# – same, now with PA


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
] (]) 14:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours. The editor made five more reverts after this report was filed. He must have extreme confidence that he is correct. ] (]) 17:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Yoruba people}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Ukabia}}


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


As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|686812311|13:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686812092 by ] (]) The ancestry of the personalities are disputed, plus wikipedia prefers things not to be listed"
::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
# {{diff2|686813836|14:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686813198 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|686814152|14:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686814065 by ] (]) Please stop undoing edits. This is not vandalism. If you believe so please report it and we'll discuss it there"
# {{diff2|686815056|14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686814651 by ] (]) Vandalism is defined by wikipedia as malicious and unverifiable edits"
# {{diff2|686815548|14:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 686815450 by ] (]) Please report any vandalism"
;<u>Comments:</u>


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
I don't know what this user is doing; he's been making some controversial edits; he's changing images in Infobox, changing words written in traditional letters to plain letters, deleting contents etc. All of these without proper explanation or discussion. He's also been engaging in edit wars, he's violated 3RR already, within few minutes, and still heavily reverting and deleting large contents. ] (]) 14:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Probability and statistics}}
The articles I have edited are littered with ], original research, and just unconstructive edits. There are sources from pages such as Joshua Projects which WIkipedia has decided should not be used in ethnic group articles as it is an unreliable source. The 'changing words written in traditional letters to plain letters' is removing the bold lettering that is plaguing the ] article and is not part of any standard way of editing wikipedia articles. There should be ] and not edits based on users preferences. ''']''' - ] 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Logoshimpo}}
:I don't know whether to open another section here but there are also problems with ] and the ], ], and ] article where there are unreliable or no sources linking these people to Nigeria. The dispute has been opened on the talk page of ]. The issue of ancestry has also come up with these people images being added to the infobox of the Yoruba people article which is what sparked the initial edit war. The resolution could look at the example of the ] and a ] to see how ancestry needs verifiable sources and not blogs or gossip sites which is what is being provided. ''']''' - ] 14:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
''']''' Your claim that the sources pertaining to the blp articles in question are unreliable is not justified based on your recent series of persistent edit-warring which basically involves removal of information with citations. Besides these ones, I have also observed that in your edition of other Yoruba-related articles where you totally and partially removed information and citations without justifiable reason or basis in ] and ]. I do recommend that you stop this distruptive editing and also keep away from Yoruba-related articles. ] (]) 14:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
], any Misplaced Pages user can edit whatever article they can with reliable sources. Let's lay out the sources in question: For the ancestry of Nas and Olu Dara, these sites were used:
# {{diff2|1270376068|06:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) see ]"
*http://www.blackenterprise.com/lifestyle/ten-facts-about-nas/
*https://face2faceafrica.com/article/top-nigerian-entertainers-leading-the-us-uk-entertainment-industries#.Viem9xCrQ0p


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Both of these pages are baseless lists on entertainment blogs written as ]. There are probably a plethora of ancestries we can 'verify' using gossip sites if these are found to be reliable. And then was also cited but, tellingly, nothing in there actually said anything about either Nas or Olu Dara ancestry. For ] there's absolutely no reference given apart from the fact that his middle name is Yoruba. It would be relavant to note that many African Americans have picked up African names over the years and examples from other languages other than Yoruba include ] and ], African Americans who were given or adopted African names. Something as big as someones ancestry should surely be able to be easily verifiable outside of shaky entertainment news blogs. ''']''' - ] 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
: Also if we use blogs, then says Nas is not Nigerian. ''']''' - ] 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


I currently only have access to Misplaced Pages so I might not be able to access the sites you listed However the bottom line is that You are the only editor that has been involved in persistent edit-warring with me and that is only over these Yoruba-related articles. I want to believe that as an igbo wikipedia contributor, You are well aware of the importance of names in the Nigerian culture and that only people belonging to a particular ethnic group use the language of ethnicity for their names. Besides, originating from Nigeria alone gives you approximately 1/4 chance of having a ], ] or ] origin or descent. I usually cite either the first, last or middle names for both sexes and the surnames only for males. In cases where there are no name sources, I use other sources to cite their ethnicity. This is coupled with the fact that they originate from the cultural region belonging to the particular ethnic group
. I did not even cite ] and ]'s Yoruba names but instead used alternate sources. Not only ] but his brother ] were given Yoruba names at birth. It is very rare for multiple members of a family to have the same language of ethnicity for their names if they don't belong to the ethnic group in question.
] (]) 15:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
: I have previously added ] as Igbo a long time ago and accepted an edit that removed that ancestry as well as a host of others. I was challenged about the ancestry of the people in the ] infobox and provided reliable sources. Yes, names are important to Nigerians, but these names were adopted by African Americans speculatively as a way to connect to their African ancestry. I gave you the example of Kojo and Nnenna as examples of people with non-Yoruba Nigerian names who are not of known Nigerian ancestry. There are further more people from other areas of the Americas who are of African ancestry and have adopted African names, if we go by names alone then people with Swahili names should also be classed as having Kenyan ancestry. It's similar to White Americans who had changed and Anglicised their names even though they are not of known or direct English ancestry. The edits I made was because it is a known rumour that Nas and his father is of Nigerian descent as well as Donald which is not backed up by any reliable source apart form gossip sites who may have even used these Misplaced Pages pages as a source. I changed the Yoruba page because the people we're discussing have not once even said in an interview that they are Nigerian while ] and ] are confirmed Nigerians/Yoruba people and even arguably more popular. I tried to clean up the Yoruba article so it can match the standard set by the ] article which is currently a ]. ''']''' - ] 16:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' Both ] and ] have broken 3RR at ]. Normally this calls for a 24-hour block of both editors. Either person might avoid a block if they will promise to wait for consensus before making any further edits at ], or any edits about the ethnic origin of anyone from Nigeria. ] (]) 16:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Eruditescholar and Ukabia were blocked 24 hours for edit warring by ]. ] (]) 19:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Iran}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Lemondropzzz}} and {{userlinks|Contaldo80}}

<!-- 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 Lemondropzzz reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

Diffs of Contaldo80's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#

None of the two users have discussed their edit war on the talk page (''I have no part in it myself and have not edited the article, just happened to see it. '')

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
:'''Comments:''' Both ] and ] seem to have broken ] on this article. Can either of them explain why they should not be blocked? ] (]) 23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Upon closer inspection of ], I would not be alien to an indef block as per ]. There are so many 3RR violations just today that it makes me dizzy. I tried to revert and restore another article one (where I count around '''10 reverts by Lemondropzzz just today'''), but of course I just got reverted. Pardon me for just showing the edit history, the number of reverts is insane . Lemondropzzz's actions during October 21 could break the Wiki-record for heavient edit warring (across multiple pages) in one day ever. ] (]) 23:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:] blocked 48 hours for continuing to revert without responding. Waiting for ] to respond here. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Thanks for your patience. I have tried to act constructively on this issue - suggesting Lemondropzzz try and explain his/her controversial edits in more detail so we can then better understand the concerns. I was particularly concerned that the wider edit history of this editor showed a number of questionable edits on a range of articles which bordered on the disruptive and in several cases challenged NPOV; or lacked sources for a claim. It did not seem to me that they were prepared to act reasonably. But this approach failed in quite an aggressive way. I have dealt with many articles where the issue of homosexuality is central, and it is the case for whatever reason that they attract a high degree of vandalism and disruptive editing. Eventually, I realised that I myself was in danger of being seen as edit warring and so I stopped, and proposed some revised text that attempted to find some common ground and break the impasse. I should really have just referred Lemondropzzz directly to one of the administrators noticeboards in retrospect. ] (]) 08:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' As the person filing the report, I tend to agree with ]. I reported both users, as both had edit warred, but I also found there to be a difference in quality, with Lemondropzzz being by far the most disruptive; the decision is of course up to the closing admin but I would not be alien to consider Contaldo80's action as a counter-vandalism effort, even if a bit over-zealous. ] (]) 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b}} {{AN3|w}} {{u|Lemondropzzz}} blocked per above. {{u|Contaldo80}} expected to follow their own advice and seek outside assistance instead of edit warring. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

== ] and ] reported by ] ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Arkon}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Scjessey}}

<!-- 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. -->

'''Arkon''' <br />
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:
#
#
#

'''Scjessey''' <br />
Previous version reverted to:

#
#
#

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Today's edit war involves two experienced (, ) editors who (likely) know this behavior is prohibited and not productive. Occurred on ] which is labeled with ] ("This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.").

Yesterday, Scjessey responded to a (my) edit which to stem another near edit war, with , then responded to the associated BRD Talk section with a . Understood yesterday's edits are not directly related to today's edit war, but speaks to the ongoing problematic behavior around collaboration and discussion on an article where both ] and ] ("...and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.") were implemented presumably to deter exactly this type of behavior.

Note, all of these edits occurred with 30 minutes. Filing now, which likely deters the 4th R to nominally exceed ]. ] (]) 23:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:{{edit conflict}}Addendum:
:Another ], ] instance to ], discovered while posting notifications to both Talks. ] (]) 23:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
{{quote|"Don't be a dick. You could always EDIT the fucking thing, instead of just reverting it like a douchebag. -- ] (]) 22:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)"}}

**'''Uninvolved comment''' None of the users broker 3RR, even though both edit warred. The proper way to warn users is to post a 3RR warning on their talk pages, not to file premature reports. Is there a reason ] ''did not'' warn any of the users, but ''did'' file this report. I move it be closed unless the edit war continues. ] (]) 23:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
**(While there is no 3RR violation, I would not object to the closing admin blocking Scjessey for this completely inappropriate ]-violation . ] (]) 23:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
***Really? So it doesn't matter that the comment I made above was in reply to then? I know saying "he started it" sounds childish, but... well... he started it. -- ] (]) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much to add here, the intent was to minimize harm from inappropriate canvassing. Scjessey seems to be having a rough day. Not sure it's block worthy at this point. ] (]) 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
:Oh, ''thank you''. I'm so lucky to have you to defend me! -- ] (]) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
::If you'd rather have me say "He's being disruptive and semi-trolling", I can do that too. But I do know-ish you, and you generally aren't this brazenly wrong, so I was trying to be kind. ] (]) 02:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Buraq}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Doctorman}}

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
# 12:19, 21 October
# 18:07, 21 October
# 23:14, 21 October
# 00:13, 22 October
# 00:45, 22 October
# 02:50, 22 October
# 03:19, 22 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:47, 22 October

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Doctorman is engaging in ] and POV pushing, and clearly has no regard for the 3RR rule. ] (]) 03:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}.--] (]) 03:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 31h ) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Muhammad in Islam}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Playnot}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|686880310|22:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Generally in Islam, Muslims only seek help in Allah"
# {{diff2|686882102|22:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Removed the highlighting edited by 168.1.86.54. Identifying reliable source is a way to improve encyclopedia. Many sources may listed here are not reliable. We need verification first."
# {{diff2|686882536|22:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Information can be restored but for the meantime, we need some verifiability."
# {{diff|oldid=686882922|diff=686903136|label=Consecutive edits made from 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) to 02:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|686883593|23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Really sorry, encyclopedic content must be verifiable"
## {{diff2|686903136|02:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Fix nonconstructive information."
# {{diff2|686918977|04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Information should be constructive and the source should be reliable. WP:BB"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|686882936|23:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Multiple requests to use talk page ignored ] <sup>]</sup> 04:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''Blocked''' for 31 hours. ] 04:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Benjamin Netanyahu}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AngryMeditations}}

<!-- 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:
#
#
'''The article is under strict Arbitration enforcement of 1RR''', two reverts is an automatic block.

<!-- 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: ''No warning necessary for this article, as per '''"Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense."''' ''

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

An obvious case of violating the strict 1RR rule (in addition to being a ] violation. ] (]) 13:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] &#124; ] 14:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Joker in other media}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|108.26.174.18}}

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


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Talk Page discussion attempts / warnings:'''
# {{diff2|1270081668|20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


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


Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , . The last follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them; that includes a . Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . ] (]) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
This user keeps relentlessly attempting to add two unconstructive edits to the article. Despite having been warned numerous times and even after being told that the topics are now on the article's Talk Page, this user refuses to engage in any sort of discussion and will not stop attempting to revert the article to the revision (s)he wants, even after being reverted numerous times by every other editor at the article. ] (]) 14:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:07, 19 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    Edit-warring IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Garudam (Nominator blocked 1 week)

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

    You have not linked to efforts to make a cosd e mpromise or even warned other editors that they might be edit warring. "Nationalistic Indians" is a very serious thing to say and I suggest that you focus on the content and less about the nationality of the editors involved. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please see this. Looks like a troll IP to me, making personal attacks. Garuda 11:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: ds fewdv

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

    erg eia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

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

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

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

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

    4. ge gre gmitism&diff=prev&oldid=1270226516



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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Logoshimpo reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: )

    Page: Probability and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 06:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269903395 by JayBeeEll (talk) see MOS:DABINTRO"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , . The last follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them; that includes a gentle warning about edit-warring. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . JBL (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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