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

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

Revision as of 14:23, 15 April 2008 editJehochman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,282 edits →User:Supergreenred reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: ): blocked 48 hours← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:15, 8 January 2025 edit undoGarudam (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,813 edits →User:Garudam reported by User:Someguywhosbored (Result: ): cmtTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{moveprotected\|small=yes}}
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	</noinclude>
	]
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 70		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~72h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	=Violations=
	:Please place ] {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can for it.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
	<!--
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Chance997}}
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	-->

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Even after being pleased on his User page to stop it, Croix 129 continues entering the (wrong) ''Pavillon royal'' (]) as national flag of royal France instead of the correct one I restore everytime, the ''Drapeau blanc'' (]), especially in the articles ], ] and ]. ] (]) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Opposition to trade unions}}. {{3RRV\|J.R._Hercules}}: Time reported: 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
	He keeps singling out Hitler as one opposed to trade unions and thus possibly trying to sneak in ]. ] ] 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ToadGuy101}}
	:I've posted a message at J.R. Hercules' talk page informing the user of the 3RR rule and of this report, and inviting the user to self-revert. <s> The user has not edited for over 24 hours.</s><small>(11:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC))</small> <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:J.R. Hercules has been editing Misplaced Pages for two and a half years so I believe that he is acquainted with the 3RR. Also, he was after Coppertwig left him a message at his but he refused to make self-revert, which indicates that he believes that revert warring is a legitimate way of resolving disputes. Other user tried to discuss this issue on article talk page, but except comment in which he accused him of having political agenda and being intellectual dishonest, Hercules failed to provide any explanation for his reverts. ] ] 09:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hour block ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1267771905\|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267757010\|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
			# {{diff2\|1267751151\|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267747621\|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Absolut Vodka}}. {{3RRV\|The rabbit in the suitcase}}: Time reported: 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267751597\|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			# {{diff2\|1267301347\|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1000mods}} <br />
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mindxeraser}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	User The rabbit in the suitcase is determined to make the Absout Vodka page about blogger Michelle Malkin. He is determined to revert as many times as he wishes to "own" the page. People have attempted to reach consensus with him, but he does not reciprocate. ] (]) 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
	:<s>'''Apparently no violation'''. (non-admin opinion). I see only three reverts. It takes four reverts in a 24-hour period to violate 3RR. </s> The two edits at 02:07 and 02:11 are consecutive, so they count as one edit. That edit added "'''led by'''", apparently for the first time,<s> so it was apparently not a revert. </s> The following three also added "led by", so they are reverts. <s> No proper "previous version reverted to" has been supplied.</s> Dates as well as times should be stated. Urzatron's account has only 24 edits. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC) <small>I struck out some of my words. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)</small>

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	::The "previous version reverted to" isn't done correctly? My mistake.] (]) 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	::I've attempted to rectify by changing the "previous version reverted to." The words aren't exactly the same, but you'll see the intent is to make the entry "led by Michelle Malkin" or "bloggers connected with Michelle Malkin began" ... to revert this meaning repeatedly.] (]) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::I also neglected to realize that two of the user's edits were back-to-back; therefore I've removed one of the claimed "reverts" from this log, as you're obviously correct -- two edits back-to-back certainly aren't two reverts. Your advice is appreciated. :) ] (]) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:::I see your point now. The version of 13:45 10 April 2008, although it did not contain the words "led by", contained essentially the same or a very similar idea, "'''bloggers connected with Mexican immigration critic Michelle Malkin'''". This idea of M. Malkin being central to or connected with all of the bloggers mentioned was softened and removed in the two subsequent edits: "'''Various bloggers, including those connected with ... ],'''" (Ulzatron, ; then "'''Various ... bloggers, including ... ]'''", by Orangemike at , completely eliminating the idea that the bloggers were "connected" with M. Malkin. Therefore, logically, if not literally, inserting "led by" is a revert, and if this argument is accepted then there are four reverts within 24 hours.
	:::I've added dates to the above report.
	::: is The rabbit in the suitcase's response to the 3RR warning. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*'''Result''' - I've blocked for 24 hours. Clear edit warring. ]] 10:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
			{{AN3\|b\|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No ~~violation~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fernanda Torres}}
	*] violation on {{Article\|Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace}}, {{Article\|Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi}}. {{3RRV\|TheRealFennShysa}}: Time reported: 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			# {{diff2\|1267808569\|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			# {{diff2\|1267807858\|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267807213\|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806982\|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806103\|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1267807698\|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
	*2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1267808131\|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"
	*3rd revert:
	*4rd revert:
	*5th revert:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4rd revert:
	*5rd revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			{{AN3\|b\|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
	Before we discussed it in a talk page; which is not going to well, I changed a the Star Wars episodes in the template in order and this user came and reverted my edit in all 6 Star Wars Articles, not just this one. We reverted 5 to 6 times, it doesn't seem stop or go anywhere. I feel she or he is following me around Misplaced Pages and reverting my edits, and I dont want to break the 3RR rule and revert my edits back. This user does not clearly know the 3RR rule. // A Raider Like Indiana 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
	:'''No violation''' (non-admin opinion). Looking at the edit histories, I see only three edits in April on each page by TheRealFennShysa. It takes four reverts to violate the 3RR. The report is not formulated properly: diffs must be given, not version links; there are duplicates in the list; not all versions listed are by the reportee; and no proper "previous version reverted to" has been given. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 14:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Csknp}}
	:As per Coppertwig (again ;-), no violation here. These are also stale, and unless they're reverting today then no action will take place as blocks are not punitive. ]] 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== Report by ] (Result: Page protected) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx
			# {{diff2\|1267452946\|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			# {{diff2\|1267525585\|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	The preceding was posted by ] at 20:20, 12 April 2008.
			# {{diff2\|1267644988\|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267646582\|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::I replaced the above to a link to where the content appears at the National Post. I doubt that Lawrence Solomon intended to release the content under the ]; therefore it violates our internal copyright rules, even though it likely qualifies as ] by US law. ] (]) 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267699885\|diff=1267736737\|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	I collapsed this because, although it's talking about a revert war, it's not in the appropriate format for this noticeboard. I also looked at {{Article\|Naomi Oreskes}} and see that {{3RRV\|KimDabelsteinPetersen}} has only 3 edits on April 11, and none the day before or after, so there is no 3RR violation on that page. (non-admin opinion.) <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
			This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The page ] has been protected until April 26 by Rjd0060. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
			: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:(Actually, the page had already been protected at 14:53, 12 April 2008 before the above was posted, but whatever.) <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} (by {{u\|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~24 hour block x2~~ ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	*] violation on {{Article\|NaturallySpeaking}}. {{3RRV\|JTMcDonald}}: Time reported: 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	A new user, JTMcDonald, came to the article and some excessive details and ad like copy to the NaturallySpeaking article. I removed it, and finally began tackling some of the issues it was tagged for, including reading like an ad, needing clean up, being unreferenced, etc. I removed quite a bit of software-manual and ad-like material,and fixed the layout and section ordering to be more inline with what is appropriate for a software package. JTMcDonald keeps reverting this clean up, usually with some variant of the edit summary "Restoring this article to prior condition as of March 27 2008 with updates for new versions of DNS 9.1 & 9.5.". The first time, I left a note in the edit summary as to why it was cleaned out. The second time, I left an NPOV welcome. The third, I left a note on his talk page asking him to stop, explaining why, and trying to invite him to discuss it. When he undid the clean up again, I left a warning about unsourced material and reverted as vandalism as his reverts are also removing maintenance tags. He reverted again, so I left a 3RR warning. He has answered no messages and again just keeps reverting without any discussion or response to my messages and reasons for clean up. I'm not bothering undoing his revert again until the results of this report, as I have now, of course, also gone over 3RR in trying to deal with this issue.

	Note, another editor reverted JTMcDonald's last undoing of the clean up, and JTMcDonald reverted again. In the last he claims to have kept my "updates" which is false, as it is a pure revert with all tags removed, none of the reordering kept, etc. ] (]) 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	:It's clear that both users were edit warring. I have blocked them both for 24 hours. ]] 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~24 hour block~~ ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	*] violation on {{Article\|Rabindranath Tagore}}, an FA. {{3RRV\|Sroy1947}}: Time reported: 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

	*Previous version reverted to: ~~<!-- This is MANDATORY. --> (This is a complex revert)~~		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			# (31 December 2024)
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
			# (6 January 2024)
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
			# (7 January 2025)
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert: (via user's IP, belongs to user per his own )
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	Other reverts in the last 24 hours

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
	*

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Diff of 3RR warning: , but User already knows of 3RR, he has been threatening other users with 3RR (12:39, 12 April 2008)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	This user has been blanking valid references regarding Rabindranath Tagore ancestry from Tagore's biography. The user has several times blanked references. User knows about 3RR, and has been threatening others with 3RR violation warnings (as shown above) since yesterday. Made 5 reverts in 24 hours to this article. (on a separate note, that a new user is showing such behavior makes me think this is a sockpuppet account). ] (]) 06:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	::This is my first (preliminary) objection to User:Ragib's charge. This objection is formal, till such time as I provide a detailed rebuttal if called upon to do so. This matter is also being discussed NOW on the talk page of the impugned article between Ragib and myself. It is noteworthy that Admin Ragib, deliberately removed (twice) a DISPUTE tag I had placed without logging any TALK (either on the TALK discussion I had previously initiated and which was ongoing with other editors, or on my Talk page). In any case I am not a vandal, but a serious editor raising serious disputes for a Featured Article.] (]) 07:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	::Concerning the sockpuppetry charge, I am here under my easily searchable for RL identity, and there is no reason why I would vandalise my family page. ] (]) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::Concerning the "threatening" charge, I clarify that I was "cautioning" User:DwipaiyanC. Admin:Ragib would be well advised to recall what "weasel words" are. ] (]) 08:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:::Note that, the user has, on several occasions (linked in 1st and 2nd rv diffs) , blanked references from a reputed biography of Tagore. Either way, the diffs are all provided above, and the user is well aware of 3RR even from the start of his "new" Misplaced Pages edits. '''5 reverts''' have been made by this user in the last 24 hours, in full knowledge of 3RR. I rest my case. --] (]) 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
			# {{diff2\|1268002110\|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	::::User:RAGIB: is well aware that what was supposedly "blanked" is from dubious literary biographies cited, whereas what hesimilarly deleted (without discussion) was my citation from an ENCYCLOPEDIA which he has often cited from himself. He has Also passed dubious uncalled for remarks hinting that I am ignorant of who Krisha Kripalani is. I also dispute the way he is counting reverts, since it the letter AND spirit of 3RR which is important, and my "Compromise" edits placing DISPUTE tags must not be included.] (]) 08:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

	Firstly, my admin hat is not on my head in this case, and in no way did I suggest, hint, claim, message, imply that my being an admin has anything to do here. So, the user sroy1947 is kindly requested not to make any misrepresentation regarding this. As for the rest of your comments, the talk page of the article in question is the appropriate venue to discuss them, which is precisely what I have been doing at this moment. User:Sroy1947 has made several reverts which have been diffed above, according to the requirements of this page. '''5 reverts''' by blanking sourced information have been linked to in the above diffs. Thank you. --] (]) 08:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:I have blocked ] for 24 hours for edit warring. Please could I request that all parties involved stop reverting and use discussion to achieve progress. ]] 10:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~8 hours~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|The Troubles}}. {{3RRV\|Redking7}}: Time reported: 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			#
	*
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*1st revert:
			Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
	*2nd revert:
			*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
	*3rd revert:
			:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*4th revert: (Note that this revert also involved adding some extra text, but was reverted by another editor)
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.

			*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all.

			*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
	{{User\|Redking7}} is on mission to remove the phrase "]" as a name for the state whose territory is 26 of the 32 counties of the island of ] (i.e. excluding the six counties of ], which remain part of the ]). The official name of the state is "Ireland", but ] the state's official ''description'' has been "Republic of Ireland". There have been numerous proposals at ] to rename that article to "Ireland (state)" or some such disambiguated name, most recently last month, but none has achieved consensus.
			*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself

			*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
	Nonethless, some editors have sought to remove the phrase "Republic of Ireland" from other articles, even when this might introduce ambiguity, and that is the issue in dispute wrt the article ] (see ]).
			*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?

			*:
	The article ] and related articles are subject to ] as a result of ]. There is a notice to this effect at the top of ]. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.

			*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b\|8 hours}} for edit warring and advised of ]. ] (]) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
			*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I don't understand why BHG reported this instance, when shes been so in the recent past.] (]) 13:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::] please. As I had to TU at ], I reported this one because I might be perceived as having a COI in this case. BTW, the block you refer to . ---] <small>] • (])</small> 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::The appeals "process" is a greater farce than the whimsical discretion of admins to administer blocks in the first place, that proves nothing. The COI and "involved" admin principles are also close to meaningless.] (]) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Well, I'm very impressed.
	::::::My admin actions have been criticised before, but this is the first time that I have been the subject of a repeated complaint for seeking third-party involvement to avoid any possible COI. Maybe you should also lodge a complaint that I have not been edit-warring or sock-puppeteering? --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


	== ] reported by ] (Result:No action ) ==

	*] violation on {{article\|Anna Politkovskaya assassination}}. {{3RRV\|Biophys}}: Time reported: 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning: User is a regular and has many warnings on talk (removed lots of them)

	He keeps reverting changes I made with no legit explanation at all (saying no consensus, all the while he makes those huge changes with no consensus), and continues to make huge POV pushing edits that aren't warranted and are highly controversial. This user is a massive POV pusher and has been warned about baised editing by admins, as well as for wiki-stalking (me and others). He is constantly edit warring and trying to push his conspiracy theories ''without consensus'', giving them undue weight and using logical fallacies to justify the changes. - "If this theory is wrong, then where's a book that says it's wrong?" revert - That sort of thing, absolutely ridiculous. ] (]) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	:In fact I made only one revert. As one can see from this article talk page and edit history, I tried to accomodate the criticism of another side. He challenged views about Putin's involvement in the murder as "fringe theory" . So, I had to provide much more supporting sources, and that is exactly what I did. In reply, my opponent told that he is not going to cooperate . However, I am ready to apologize if you think I am still at fault.] (]) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) O'K, I made a self-revert. I guess we need more opinions on this subject.] (]) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	* No action, user self-reverted. Please pursue ]. ] <small>]</small> 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	::I didn't challenge your sources, I challenged the fact that they are views worthy of a 4000 word section, which they are not. I said that twice in discussion. The claims are politically motivated, all made by dissenters and defectors, and have no evidence to back them up. Additionally, you reverted my original changes a total of 4 times as you can see above. I also find it amusing how you just reverted yourself saying "we need more opinions" after I had to do this. Why didn't we need more opinions before when I told you that in the first place? ] (]) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	:::Well this is great. Now we can go through the whole thing all over again in a few days and Biophys gets away with breaking rules and POV pushing yet again. ] (]) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	Unfortunately, it was you, ], who started undoing edits by several users and broke the 3RR rule:
	:
	:,
	:
	:.
	] (]) 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	:And the solution to your problem was so simple, to get your friend to do the reverting for you! Man I wonder why more people don't do that..

	:Like I said yesterday, it starts all over again. This user refuses to cooperate in discussion and reverts changes with no explanation whatsoever. The word consensus means nothing. I'm done. I just don't care. As long as wikipedia is full of people like Biophys and as long as they're allowed to run rampant, it will always be a joke and will always be a propaganda tool more than anything else. ] (]) 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	::So, that is why you just made ? It was not me who you have reverted three times in this article. It was not me who gave you . ] (]) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	:That's right, I'm not going to bother with trying to improve the article but don't expect the tags to go away. ] (]) 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No Violation ) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|James Stewart (actor)}}. {{3RRV\|92.11.146.196}}: Time reported: 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	# Diff 18:04, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stewart (actor)‎ (Undid revision 204220254 by Bzuk (talk))
	# Diff 18:44, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stewart (actor)‎ (Undid revision 205372274 by Bzuk (talk))
	# Diff 19:19, 13 April 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stewart (actor)‎ (Undid revision 205385095 by Bzuk (talk)The talk page is locked) (top)

	*Diff of 3RR warning:


	The editor also appears to be recently using another Ip address:
	# (cur) (last) 14:32, 8 April 2008 Bzuk (Talk \| contribs) (79,173 bytes) (it appears that this article will again require protection) (undo)
	# (cur) (last) 14:31, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (79,267 bytes) (→Politics) (undo)
	# (cur) (last) 14:30, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (79,123 bytes) (→Politics) (undo)
	# (cur) (last) 12:57, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (78,803 bytes) (Undid revision 204200420 by Bzuk (talk)Not contentious at all, Stewart was a racist just like his friends.) (undo)
	# (cur) (last) 12:37, 8 April 2008 Bzuk (Talk \| contribs) (79,173 bytes) (This is a contentious issue that was previously discussed on the talk page, introduce it there) (undo)
	# (cur) (last) 11:50, 8 April 2008 92.10.220.95 (Talk) (78,803 bytes) (Undid revision 203503326 by CDChen (talk)) (undo)

	It may be editor Harvey Carter who has previously used the exact same terminology and wording. ] FWiW ] (]) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|nv}} I fixed the header of this report so that the IP links work. The second set of edits listed, those from April 8, are by a different IP editor, {{user\| 92.10.220.95}}. Since we have two different IPs, there can't be any question of using checkuser to show they are the same editor. The April 8 edits are stale for 3RR purposes. So I don't think this can be considered a valid 3RR complaint, even if you throw in a potential RFCU. Meanwhile, back at the article, ] has full-protected the article until editors can work out a consensus whether allegations of racism are well enough proven to stay in the article. If consensus is that the allegations are not verified or undue weight, then you could maybe have a case for semi-protection against these IP-hopping attacks. Why not work on that. Meanwhile I'm marking this as No Violation for purpose of this noticeboard. ] (]) 04:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Pro-pedophile Activism}}. {{3RRV\|SqueakBox}}: Time reported: 00:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:




	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning: User has the experience to know better, and a history of similar behaviour on this article.

	POV warrior and some quite inappropriate goading aimed towards editors.

	Reasons included for reverts: “sock” (unfounded), “rm trollinmg from an editor whose exampl;es have been demosnstrated as falase how dare you add material that is demonstrably unsoutrced oyyur opinionj ion talk”, and “please stop promoting the ] (]) 00:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	: Page protected by {{Admin\|Ryan Postlethwaite}} ] <small>]</small> 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|People's Liberation Army operations in Tibet (1950–1951)}}. {{3RRV\|Littlebutterfly}}: Time reported: 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: which was revert to <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning: User has been 3RR'd in the past and has reported another user's 3RR before. This user should have known better that he would be 3RR'd for hisactions.

	Littlebutterfly has been constantly doing harm to this page and has continuously reverted anything that went against his views ] (]) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 08:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|WrestleMania XXIV}}. {{3RRV\|LifeStroke420}}: Time reported: 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	LifeStroke's been reverting the page for over a day now. Originally he was saying "check the archives for proof", then the later reverts were just plain and simple reverts with no reasoning. I don't think he replied to the warning either. ] (]) 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	:{{AN3\|b}} 24 hours. ] (]) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|State terrorism and the United States}}. {{3RRV\|Supergreenred}}: Time reported: 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

	(first revert)
	(reverts 2-4)

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Supergreenred has been edit-warring on the above article. He was temporarily blocked for tendacious editing, which was then lifted. However, even though I had warned him about edit-warring, the first thing he did after the block was lifted was to start reverting again. He also removed my warning and subsequent requests to calm down from his talk page.

	Clearly the user does not believe the rules apply to him. He is an experienced user - he admits he has long edited as an anon-IP and seems to know the rules, even if he doesn't follow them. He should not be treated as a newbie. Although he has not quite reverted four times in 24 hours, he has broken the spirit of the rules by reverting four times within 26 hours, especially when he had just been released from a prior block. ] (]) 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|nve}} ] (]) 12:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Err, with all due respect I have seen many cases where editors have been blocked for four reversions outside of 24 hours. Sure it can't be too great, but I think four reverts within 26 hours is quite similar. If you want to say that the period was not large enough, ok. But you are not being correct when you say there '''must''' be 4 reverts in 24 hours. ] (]) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I am happy with my decision; another admin can feel free to review. ] (]) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 12h) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Akatsuki (Naruto)}}. {{3RRV\|Darkmage Rector}}: Time reported: 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Continued insertion of the same nonsense. User has been told to stop many times, but refuses to do so. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	:{{AN3\|b}} for 12 hours. ] (]) 16:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Fitna (film)}}. {{3RRV\|Zencv}}: Time reported: 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Warring to include a link to a non-notable YouTube film parody. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Blocked for 24 hours. ]] 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Linus Pauling}}. {{3RRV\|AgntOrange}}: Time reported: 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <s> http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Linus_Pauling&oldid=205675150 16:57]</s> <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	*<s>1st revert: </s>
	*<s>2nd</s> 1st revert:
	*<s>3rd</s> 2nd revert:
	*<s>4th</s> 3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	Each revert deletes "''' Agricultural College'''" from the sentence "he attended ..." and/or from the sentence "Pauling entered...".

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	AgntOrange has made a number of edits today, all related to Oregon State University; I believe every edit, or nearly every one, has met with opposition from a variety of editors. He/she was warned about 3RR on the ] article, violated 3RR, and the remedy was protecting the page. Now he/she has violated it at ], also with attempts to discuss the situation on the talk page by more than one established editor. This is becoming a big distraction from encyclopedia writing. The string of casual accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry etc. doesn't help. ] (]) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I've modified (by striking out) and added to the above report. <font color="#BB7730" size="5pt">☺</font>] (]) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	::Blocked 31 hours. ] (]) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Jin Jing}}. {{3RRV\|Novidmarana}}: Time reported: 05:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	Editor keeps deleting the words "fending off protestors" in the intro. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	:User has already been blocked. ]] 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No vio) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Jin Jing}}. {{3RRV\|HongQuiGong}}: Time reported: 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	Actually see above, as the complainant above has also violated the 3RR rule. Editor ] keeps removing content that is sourced and has a citation, keeps adding "defending the Olympic torch against a protestor who....", although this is what the source is exactly saying, and keeps adding a disclaimer on a reliable source, in the form of "According to Geoffrey York", although source is a reliable source according to ]. Same applies for ].

	] (]) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I'm not sure I see where the 3RR violation is. The first two diffs are different edits from the last two diffs. But if you can point out the 3RR violation, I'd be glad to self-revert. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 06:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	::I see 2 or 3 reverts looking through the articles history but I can't see any violation. A little bit of ] perhaps, but nothing too auspicious. No violation. ]] 09:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Jin Jing}}. {{3RRV\|Helloterran}}: Time reported: 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	Once again, see above, as the complainant above has also violated the 3RR rule. Editor ] keeps removing content that is sourced and has a citation, keeps adding "defending the Olympic torch against a protestor who....", although this is what the source is exactly saying, and keeps adding a disclaimer on a reliable source, in the form of "According to Geoffrey York", although source is a reliable source according to ].] (]) 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Already been blocked. ]] 09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Melody Amber chess tournament}}. {{3RRV\|GijsvdL}}: Time reported: ] (]) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*Previous version reverted to: <small>(not sure what exactly is meant here by 'previous')</small> <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	Editor keeps removing references that are in full accordance with ], despite ample explanation on the talk page and several warnings. User is not disputing relevance (the other books in the series are kept) but insists that my name is not allowed to appear on the internet. ] (]) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	:Please note Guido den Broeder is notorious on the Dutch wikipedia for selfpromotion and related problems. He's under strict supervision of a mentor, and currently blocked for two weeks. See his track record on blocks. Regards, ] (]) 07:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (sysop on Dutch wikipedia)

	::] is a single-purpose account, taking part in the same edit war. Enough said. As explained already in 30 other places: I have no mentor, block is random by another mob member and is being dealt with. ] (]) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::See also ] about this case. A EN.wiki sysop already states my reverts are valid. Note also that JacobH is not a single-purpose account. JacobH is a NL.wiki sysop. As an addition: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for the same behaviour. He's also blocked at NL.wiki at the moment. ] (]) 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::No such measures have been taken. Since user keeps repeating this lie (check with nl:Arbcom, note that the previous random block was lifted by the Arbcom), can something further be done? ] (]) 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. ] (]) 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::The IRC is not a part of nl:Misplaced Pages. The Arbcom is.
	::::::Meanwhile, it has been confirmed (village pump) that these actions are also a violation of en:copyright, and I will treat them so. There are already Arbcom procedures at nl:Misplaced Pages against this mob for similar violations (note, however, that the cases are incessantly vandalized by same users, so again check with nl:Arbcom). I will add no more and await your decision. ] (]) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::At IRC there are sufficient sysops online to verify that Guido is lying about the NL.wiki arbcom-decision. ] (]) 08:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	I've decided to try something different today: I won't block you if both of you just stop editing chess articles and use discussion to work out your disagreements. Both of you are '''not''' allowed to edit a chess article (Except to remove blatantly obvious vandalism/libel) until some progress is made between you. If you wish, I can help mediate the discussion. ]] 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I have clashed with Guido before (on the English Misplaced Pages), so I will not take any actions here. I just want to say that he does have a mentor on the Dutch Misplaced Pages, appointed by the Dutch ArbCom. Guido doesn't accept the mentoring, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The main reason for his problems on the Dutch Misplaced Pages is self-promotion, just like here. And checking the VPP discussion started by Guido indicates that it has not been confirmed that the removal of these links (books written by Guido and published by his own company) is a copyright violation at all. My suggestion would be to warn GijsvdL to be more careful about the 3RR (it is unclear to me whether he was aware of this policy), and to strongly warn Guido den Broeder against inserting any form of reference or link to his own work or work of his company, to avoid running in the same trouble here as he has on the Dutch Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Again, please check with nl:Arbcom, also read up on Dutch law, and yes, GijsvdL was aware, he was warned several times and was already active on this page. ] (]) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::Dutch law is irrelevant here, I have checked the Dutch Misplaced Pages], and could you point me to the place were GijsvdL was informed about our ] policy? It's unclear to me what you mean by "this page", but if you mean ''this'' page, then he hasn't edited it before your report here.] (]) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::I have been informed about 3RR as follows: <small>''It is not currently 3RR (currently at 3) and if it was taken to 3RR I wouldn't block anyway, because it is clearly removing self-promotion. Those aren't references, they're just adverts for the books. Black Kite 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)''</small> - ] (]) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::::@Fram: You missed the Arbcom procedure where this so-called mentorship is contested. nl:Misplaced Pages falls under Dutch law, which says that a mentor can only be appointed if the pupil requests it. There is plenty of jurisprudence. ] (]) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Why do you think nl: falls under Dutch law? It's hosted in the same way as all the other Wikimedia projects. The fact that it uses the Dutch language is entirely irrelevant for the jurisdiction. --] (]) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	::::::(edit conflict)I have given the link where Dutch Arbcom, four days ago, confirmed the mentoring. You contest it, but I have seen no posts from either ArbCom or the mentor that contest it, so for the purposes of Misplaced Pages, the mentoring is still valid. As for Dutch law: that is completely irrelevant here. A website can have its own rules of participation. Dutch law also forbids the silencing (blocking) of people, but that does not apply to a private website. But you have accused GijsvdL of lying (see above), while he has done no such thing. You are blocked and a mentor has been appointed by the arbcom (which recently confirmed this). You can contest these measures, but to deny them and to accuse another user of lying for pointing them out is way out of line. ] (]) 12:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours, repeat offense, ]) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|State terrorism and the United States}}. {{3RRV\|Supergreenred}}: Time reported: 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning. The first action of the account in Misplaced Pages was a 3RR report so he knows the rule: Also warned later about the rule on his talk page:

	Attempt to violate the spirit of the rule by waiting 9 minutes before making his fourth revert.] (]) 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	Agreed. This editor has persisted in edit-warring, even when asked not to/warned about it. He was let off with the last report because he reverted four times in 26 hours. This time he has reverted four times in 24 hours 9 minutes. Other editors have been blocked for doing this, so I do not see why this guy should be any different. He admits that he is an experienced user who edited as a series of IPs in the past - he may have been blocked then as well for edit-warring, as he has not disclosed any of the IPs he used in the past, even after he was asked. ] (]) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	: Blocked for 48 hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Fox News Channel}}. {{3RRV\|Jsn9333}}: Time reported: 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	Jsn9333 is a disruptive SPA who has already been blocked once for sock/meatpuppetry on ], and his sock/meatpuppet ({{user\|Unc 2002}} was blocked indefinitely following a SSP case and checkuser. This is Jsn9333's second violation of the 3RR, but as I am involved in the FNC discussion, I cannot place the block myself. - ] ] 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Example ==

	<pre>
	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

	<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
	</pre>

	== See also ==

	* ] or ]
	* – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

	]

	The editors of ] are in an edit war with ] hand has been asked by three users including myself to stop with his edits. the item has been brought to talk, and he refuses to yield to the majority even with the offer of a compromise. Please enforce the 3 revert/edit rule and warn/ban ] from the page--] (]) 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:15, 8 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
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)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "a ] containing an ] alien ]" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words "red-striped black hedgehog" at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the fictional hedgehog in question). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, User:Carlinal and User:Barry Wom, citing MOS:OVERLINK as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at Sonic the Hedgehog 2 to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:ToadGuy101 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: ToadGuy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267757647 by CipherRephic (talk)"
14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267751974 by John (talk)Stop whining about him"
14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267747738 by Czello (talk)"
13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2024 United Kingdom general election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

Comments:

User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Mindxeraser reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 reported by User:DandelionAndBurdock (Result: /64 blocked two weeks)

User being reported: 2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Blocked – for a period of two weeks The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Csknp reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Page already protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio

Comments: This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. Vestrian24Bio 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... Vestrian24Bio 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected (by BusterD) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

User:5.187.0.85 reported by User:Darth Stabro (Result: )

User being reported: 5.187.0.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102408 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102323 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102267 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268101988 by MrOllie (talk)"
04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268074482 by MrOllie (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(31 December 2024)
(6 January 2024)
(7 January 2025)
(8 January 2025)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 January 2025)

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

Comments: The user was warned multiple times to not insert poorly sourced contentious material in a page which is a living person's biography. Despite this, the user has continued to insert original research, while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Sokoreq reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: Blocked one week)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Cambial Yellowing (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"
18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267995628 by Hipal (talk)"
17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hipal (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "3rr"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Garudam reported by User:Someguywhosbored (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: he removed my warning for whatever reason

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))

Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .

PS: Their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. Garuda 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.

“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”

wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all.

“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”

Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself

“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”

The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?

Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.

It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: