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 06:35, 26 December 2008 editB (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,958 editsm →Knotslanding reported by Either way (Result: ): adding result to header← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:51, 6 January 2025 edit undoSilviaASH (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,560 edits →User:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: ): rephrasedTag: 2017 wikitext editor
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
	]		<!--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 = 87		\|counter = 490
	\|algo = old(~~72h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
	}}</noinclude>		}}</noinclude>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	{{noadminbacklog}}
	__TOC__

			== ], IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for a week) ==
	=Reports=
	:Please place new reports {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can the ] for it.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|French mother sauces}} <br />
	<!--
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hippo43}}, {{userlinks\|2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:6C91:81FE:34E1:80E0}}, also {{userlinks\|2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:A9B8:61A6:B4BA:3525}} and other IP's with the same prefix
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.
	-->

			'''Previous version reverted to (Hippo43):''' ]
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to (IP):''' ]
	* Page: {{article\|Armenian Genocide}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Ahmetsaatalti}}

			'''Diffs of Hippo43'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. -->
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

			'''Diffs of IP's reverts:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
			# ] (probably same IP)
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

			There are a few more, just look at which is nothing but reverts.
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ] (IP), ] (Hippo43, the IP warned them)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], discussion is still on talk at ]

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to Hippo43'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 -->

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to IP's talk page:''' ], ]
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	~~"This~~ ~~article~~ ~~has~~ ~~been~~ ~~placed~~ on a ~~one-revert~~ ~~rule.~~ ~~Any~~ ~~editor~~ ~~who~~ ~~makes~~ ~~more than one~~ ~~revert~~ on this ~~article~~ ~~(and~~ ~~this~~ ~~revert~~ ~~must~~ be ~~discussed~~ ~~on the talk page)~~ in a ~~24-hour~~ ~~period~~ ~~will be blocked~~. Please ~~edit~~ ~~cooperatively,~~ ~~and~~ ~~seek~~ ~~consensus and compromise rather than edit-~~war." ~~User~~ ~~has reverted 2 times more than the limit.--~~] (]) 22:25, 21 ~~December~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		I made the table, so of course I would like to keep it in, but at this point neither the IP nor Hippo43 seems interested in a discussion at all. Please end this month-long edit war. :-( ] (]) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|one week}} Both editors, from the article. ] (]) 05:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporting editor blocked 48 hours) ==
	: 24h ] (]) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Crunchyroll}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result:31 hours) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GachaDog}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Kosher tax}}. {{3RRV\|DrHerbertSewell}}: Time reported: 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

	''Diffs ~~are~~ ~~listed~~ ~~from~~ ~~oldest to newest, dates are in UTC~~''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# "We don’t need an owners field to put bigger companies as the owner"
			#
			#
			#
			# "Because you can’t use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent. Crunchy roll is a Joint venture of SPT and Aniplex"

	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 259421658 by ] (]) not frivolous")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 259460501 by ] (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 259462164 by ] (]Please let someone else comment before removing this tag, as you are not objective)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>

	* Diff of warning:

	—]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:Blocked for 31 hours. ] ] 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	* Page: {{article\|Clarence Thomas}} {{article\|Gonzales v. Carhart}} {{article\|Stenberg v. Carhart}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|RafaelRGarcia}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Hello, here I have a user who still removing the infobox field from articles related to streaming services, media companies, conglomerates, etc., without reason, explicitly saying that it should not be used to indicate which top-level property if It is different from the parent company if all this is demonstrated with or without sources than if they actually own the same company. ] (]) 07:00, 3 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. -->

			:Because Crunchyroll is under Crunchyroll LLC. and is a “JOINT VENTURE” of both Sony Pictures Television and Aniplex. SPT is under Sony Pictures Entertainment which is under Sony Entertainment which is under Sony of America and the parent compamy Sony corporation. Aniplex is under Sony Music Japan which is under Sony Corporation. So yeah, Sony is not the direct owner of Crunchyroll. It’s owned through a joint venture, so that’s why i removed sony from owners field ] (]) 05:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
			::{{AN3\|nb\|48 hours}} First, Gacha's reported reverts are a) stale at this point and b) spread out over a period of several days so they would not have been a violation even if reported in a timely fashion. Second, in the interim, 64.32 has clearly violated 3RR in the last day or so. Since editing on ''all'' infoboxes is a ], I have blocked them for 48 hours and alerted them to CTOPS (I left a notice on the article's talk page a while back, also). ] (]) 05:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* Previous version reverted to:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 3 months) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Khulna Division}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|76.68.24.171}}
	<!-- 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 -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<Mr Garcia is promulgating biased, novel information. He refuses to be neutral in his editorializing. (] (]) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)) here -->] (]) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#

	**Response: Walkel01 has been making highly prejudicial edits to articles, such as this one to a Supreme Court case article, where he tried to unnecessary list various graphic and brutal details of abortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stenberg_v._Carhart&diff=259110331&oldid=259105957 . He removed thousands of characters of material from the Clarence Thomas article unilaterally and has repeatedly ignored calls from me and an administrator to achieve consensus via article talk pages. He may be a sock of banned user Wallamoose. ] (]) 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	''Ruslik0 (Talk \| contribs \| block) m (Protected Clarence Thomas: Edit warring / Content dispute: This is the third edit-war in just 3 months. Please, discuss changes on Talk page. ( (expires 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)) (indefinite))) (rollback \| undo)'' ] (]) 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: page protected, warned, no blocks) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> This user keeps making disruptive edits in ]. Also, this IP address is violating ] by making personal attacks. Also violating ] as well. I warned the IP address to the ] but did not respond (see ]). Further information will be discussed on the ]. ] (]) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Page: {{article\|Pulp Fiction (film)}}
			*Blocked 3 months for block evasion.--] (]) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	* User: {{userlinks\|DCGeist}}
			*:@],
			*:what about their other ip addresses?
			*:They are using slang in edit summary.
			*:.
			*:@],
			*:check their contributions {{userlinks\|2607:FEA8:571B:8000:21F7:A044:CB68:F9D}} ''']]''' 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@],
			*::User also uses these IPs to support their edits: {{smalldiv\|
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d81a:9c9d:4833:65a4}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d8c:6de5:ff66:5c6c}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2605:8d80:6433:5419:acb6:e682:2454:6031}}<br>{{highlight\|After block expiration\|green}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571b:8000:91c9:e741:c1ee:5aa2}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571b:8000:9979:b44e:bfc2:f9e9}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571b:8000:b072:749e:a671:e7ad}}}}
			*::I think a range block is needed. ''']]''' 16:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I've blocked ] for one month and painfully/tediously reverted all their edits. The other IPs listed haven't edited since November.--] (]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@]
			*:now check this
			*:] <br>{{vandal\| 2605:8D80:6432:8C67:E42E:8C4:6EAF:1E4}}
			''']]''' 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm not going to block for one edit; what does it mean? A machine translation of the subject header works, but I tried the body and got nothing.--] (]) 17:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Wait I’m translating it. ''']]''' 17:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{highlight\|“Breed of a beggar, dog. Breed of Bengali medium. You know nothing about wiki edit(with slangs), why have you come here? Tell me Where do u live? Otherwise I’ll call army and peel your skin. Breed of roadside slum.”\|lightyellow}}
			:::::N.B chasa, baal has no English translation but a serious slangs in ], I’ve not added this in the translation.
			:::::It’s like this @] ''']]''' 17:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@],
			::::::again with another IP
			::::::] ''']]''' 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::That's disgusting. Unfortunately, a range block that encompasses both IPs is too wide and has too much collateral damage. I've rev/deleted the posts and semi-protected your Talk page for one day.--] (]) 17:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@],
			::::::::Thank you so much for your time.
			::::::::You gave me a lot of support, and it means a lot. 😊 ''']]''' 18:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Paul Pelosi}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|138.88.222.231}}
	* Diff of 3RR warning: DCGeist's indicates that he knows about the rule.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	DCGeist also engages in condescending personal attacks like "buh-bye" and "stop o\your silliness, child". ] ] 09:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
	*This is a tough one. There is a clear 3RR violation here (and I acknowledge that this user has a block log showing 3RR violations 4 times before). However, ] has contributed massively to ], and I can somewhat see how a difference in opinion on an article that one has worked a lot on can lead to terseness when changes are made. I encourage discussion on ] specific to choosing between these two revisions. If this has been discussed before in the talk archives, I ask ] to link to the discussion. Finally, separate to the 3RR report, I will give a ] warning to ] regarding the edit summaries -- ] 10:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
	**Maybe violations should not be reported anymore if all that happens is that the culprit is "rewarded" by having the result of his crimes be enshrined via blocking. I also see that you appear to subscribe to a sort of ownership principle. No matter how much he contributed, he should have the courtesy to explain his edits instead of insulting me, and he certainly should not be excused to rules applying to everybody - I have been guilty of 3RR too, including on pages I heavily contributed to and I was justly blocked for such violations. There is nothing tough about this case at all. Take also into account that my edits were clear cut formatting improvements, nothing controversial. ] ] 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
	***I appreciate your frustration, Str1977. The edit summaries directed against you were not polite. However, I think this matter can easily be resolved by discussion on the talk page of the article (i.e. a link to previous discussion on formatting, if it was discussed) -- ] 10:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
	****You also caused my frustration by your incomprehensible actions. I am not hopeful for any discussion, given DCGeist's history. Why should he change if he is rewarded for his violations. Ah, and BTW, you have not - contrary to your claims - have warned DCGeist for anything. You merely informed him of your post on the talk page. ] ] 10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	The warning is weak. I will strengthen it. But lack of discussion on talk from either of you is bad ] (]) 11:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC) And they have both been edit warring without discussion at ] too ] (]) 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267112015\|17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Citation"
	:I have not been edit-warring on McCarthyism. I made a content edit and a formatting edit. DCG reverted me on both. I did not restore my content edit but merely tagged a questionable bit. That's not edit warring. ] ] 12:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267110235\|17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Link"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267091158\|diff=1267095785\|label=Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267093244\|15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1267093459\|15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1267093933\|15:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Links"
			## {{diff2\|1267094425\|15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Vineyard"
			## {{diff2\|1267094621\|15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit California"
			## {{diff2\|1267094854\|15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Links"
			## {{diff2\|1267095785\|15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Citation"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267087059\|diff=1267090202\|label=Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267089646\|15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1267090202\|15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1266884965\|diff=1266991690\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266890042\|18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266890246\|18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266891715\|18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266892097\|18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266894041\|18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266894509\|18:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266984350\|03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266991690\|03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1266222137\|diff=1266884722\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266666459\|18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266666834\|18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266668916\|18:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266669951\|18:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266670057\|18:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266680601\|19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266680754\|19:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266681012\|19:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266682107\|19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266683528\|19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266724322\|23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266743335\|01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266744071\|01:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266858445\|15:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266858776\|15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859007\|15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859305\|15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859607\|15:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859917\|15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266860078\|15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266860307\|15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266861030\|15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266861342\|15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266861793\|15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266862475\|15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266862620\|15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266863695\|15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266868888\|16:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266869441\|16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266870020\|16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266879559\|17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266879723\|17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266880902\|17:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266881725\|17:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266882540\|17:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266884192\|17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266884722\|17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			# {{diff2\|1267091206\|15:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1267110746\|17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Page: {{article\|Walt Disney World Monorail System}}
			*See ]
	* User: {{userlinks\|Knotslanding}}

			<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. -->

			EW with IDHT and copyvios. – ] (]) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:

			User uses disingenuous edit summaries ("Edit Citation") to reassert edits , as noted by the difference between successive attempts (addition of three do-nothing spaces to cite template). <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>] (]) 18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
			*{{AN3\|ab}} ] (]) 03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wounded Knee Massacre}}
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	User has been reverted about 5 or 6 times in the last 25 hours. Additionally, the user has been uncivil on the article talk page, and borderline uncivil on his own talk page. He believes that he is in the right because he believes 3RR only covers reverts on the same content, and not on different content in the same article as the rule actually states. ] (]) 04:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:Blocked user for 24 hours. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span> ] 04:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Page: {{article\|Windows 7}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|EmpMac}}

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> I do not often use ANI, as I feel that it is far preferable to discuss and find a peaceful resolution, but in this case I feel my hand has been forced. I attempted to speak with the edit warring editor many times, and even asked them to self revert on many occassions, both on their own talk page as well as the article in question's talk page. They mockingly said "Have fun I guess." about coming to ANI, though I would have much rather we continued to discuss the subject and the sources in dispute on the talk page. At this point they are 5 edits in to a edit war and I politely stopped at 3 edits so as not to violate ]. I am a bit surprised it came to this and I apologize in advance to any admin who may now need to block the offending editor and revert to the prior consensus and stable lead on the article which had been present for many months before this editor aggressively became involved just today.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
	* Previous version reverted to:
			* Well, the first edit is just a crappy source that I randomly found pop up in a change on my watchlist. The two edits are consecutive. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page and offer a resolution. But since this seems to be a slow-motion edit war by OP going back , we may have some OWN issues to unpack. ]] 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			:And again, I would just say that any points to be made should be made on the article talk page, but that reverting 5 times (or 4 depending on how you count them), still is in violation of the 3RR rule which is pretty clear and strict. ] (]) 18:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
			:I see three reverts, . , and . maybe could maybe be a revert, depending on how long that source has been sitting in the article and if you're squinting hard enough. Iljhgtn also has made three reverts. ] (]) 18:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: counts as a partial revert not of the full text with all sources included but absolutely includes the primary material being discussed in the talk page. ] (]) 18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That was captured in my first diff. Consecutive edits are a single revert. ] (]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The request currently stands out there for the editor to self-revert and for the discussion to resume on the article talk page. ] (]) 18:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Oh good lord. You've been . ]] 18:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Where have you been in this discussion since you mentioned that this article is on your talk page? My first seeing you there was today, and you proceeded to force a new version of the lead and revert in rapid succession to your desired version. Again, I am happy to discuss this on the article talk page if you would self-revert and continue the discussion there. ] (]) 18:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::If you dispute a single source, I think that made sense for removal, due to the letter submission aspect of it, but in general I think it would have been best to discuss further on the talk page as well as maybe provide some reliable sources of your own or dispute the content of the other sources at the point of the talk page, and not simply to angrily enter into a series of reverts.
			:::::::Here were some of the other sources by the way, and I don't think you've disputed the reliability of these: , , .
			:::::::Though you've now removed all of these from the article. ] (]) 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Cool. Go...like...''get consensus''. Just because you made a change and reverted it for a year and half doesn't mean you have consensus. ]] 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Consensus is not always clear, and does not always merely side with a majority. Consensus is also reflected at least in part by reflecting what the reliable sources say. All I have asked is that we have a discussion around the reliable sources, and you self-revert in the meantime. Your response has been only to be dismissive and to not engage with the point raised, which is that we must ]. ] (]) 19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: is a partial revert of a . I would not consider this part of 3RR for today. ] ] 18:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nv}} {{U\|Iljhgtn}} and {{U\|GreenMeansGo}}, take the discussion elsewhere. ] ] 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Ok. Thanks for reviewing this. ] (]) 19:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ponnunjal (film)}}
	<!-- 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\|Tamilfilmsbuff}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Note that EmpMac sometimes labels the edits he/she is reverting as vandalism, even though they are clearly not vandalism. - ] (] <nowiki>\|</nowiki> ]) 16:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262246919\|diff=1267230449\|label=Consecutive edits made from 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) to 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:Basically one user reverting everyone else and calling it ] for soapboxing about Windows7 copying ideas from Mac OS X. There's a ] as well. --] (]) 16:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
			## {{diff2\|1267230326\|05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1267230449\|05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:{{admin-note}} Blocked user for 24 hours. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span> ] 17:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Page: {{article\|Horn speaker}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|70.128.102.146}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|71.153.163.186}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|70.234.126.249}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|70.234.148.18}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|71.153.169.28}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|70.234.147.98}}

	* Previous version reverted to:
	**
	**
	**

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:
	* 7th revert:
	* 8th revert:
	* 9th revert:

			Also at '']''. His edits don't match the sources, and reverts good edits that do. Also biased towards the subject as he removes mixed/negative reviews, as seen in '']''. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">] ] </span> 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			:{{An3\|noex}} There's only ''two'', their first edits to the article in a couple of months. And, if there are issues at other articles, maybe this is properly handled at AN/I. ] (]) 05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned user(s)) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	*
	*

			'''Page:''' ]
	The IP editor from Tulsa, Oklahoma has been consistently deleting one particular paragraph, a paragraph about multiple entry horn technology which happens to hold three out of four references contained in the article. The IP editor has occasionally engaged in ] discussion saying that the article needs to have additional paragraphs added in order to make the article balanced in viewpoint. I, too, would like to see the article expanded to contain more horn speaker technologies, and I suggested the tried-and-true chronological framework for introducing each important new horn speaker development, its time frame and its inventor. I made an initial search in patented horn speaker inventions and listed this on the talk page as a source for some of the future article expansion. The IP editor from Tulsa, however, has not wavered from insisting that the paragraph about multiple entry horn technology should NOT be in the article until full expansion of the article has been reached. I see no compelling reason why the paragraph can't remain in place during the expansion process. ] (]) 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' ]
	==] reported by ] (]) (Result: Note left)==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Talk:Ron Paul}}. {{3RRV\|75.51.76.94}}: Time reported: 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

	''Diffs ~~are~~ ~~listed~~ ~~from~~ ~~oldest to newest, dates are in UTC~~''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' , the whole section
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV */")</small>

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	I know this may seem a little ridiculous, but this guy keeps edit warring with Sinebot. It added his sig to a comment, and he keeps removing, even after people have asked him not to do so. — ] (]) 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:This one is a toughey! But his comments do seem to be overly aggressive anyway. I'll leave him a welcome message and ask him if he'd like any help, and I'll leave a gentle note about the four tildes. ]] 03:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

			User insists on adding irrelevant material in the lede. Irrelevancy aside, he fails to get consensus to include the challenged material (by 2 users at least in the talk page) per ] and edit-wars instead to get it in.
	:Okay, I've left a . Hopefully AGF'll solve this one. I wouldn't want to block or prot, obviously, as this guy is clearly relatively new. Message me if he comes back again. ]] 04:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

			I'd love to add also that he argued that the religion of the suspect in the lede is {{tq\|Absolutely relevant to the potential motive for the attack and therefore}} in this edit summary which can only imply that he believes that being a Muslim is enough of a motive to commit terrorist attacks.
			*{{AN3\|w}} No 3RR violation and user was warned of the 1RR restriction after their last edit. ] ] 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Subcompact crossover SUV}} <br/>
			'''Previous version:''' <br/>
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			'''Comments:'''
			This editor has reverted many useful edits, and most of my edits, other users' edits, without explaining their reverting of edits with citations .
			*{{AN3\|nv}} ] ] 07:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			*Note: ] is active on this page.
			# (removes 1885 which I added)
			# (removes 1885 and the quote "The man credited with coining the word ‘Zionism’ in 1885, Nathan Birnbaum," which I added)

			See ,

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

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

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

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

			Note attempt to invite user to self-revert 1RR violation. Yes, consensus required is also active on this page, but 1RR is still being violated here. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			:@] but إيان is correct that the addition market no sense... This is not something to drag someone to ANEW over. ] ] 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So 1RR is waived when the edits don't appeal to someone? I thought 1RR was a bright line rule. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And in my view the edits make sense and I thought edit warring is wrong, even if you're right? Are you weighing in on the content, or the behavior? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Wow, this is so petty AndreJustAndre. ] vibes. When they brought this up on my talk page, they ] the tenuous nature of their grievance: {{tq\| While '''the two edits are slightly different''', in both cases you removed the addition of 1885, '''arguably, two reverts, '''violating the 1RR sanction on this article,}} emphasis my own. When they ] me to self-revert, I ] them to seek consensus on the talk page. Instead, they decided to waste everyone's time at ANEW.
			:I didn't go in and explain my edits because I didn't think it was worth it, but it appears the first time I 1885 was accidental as I was trying to manually manage an edit conflict. I thought the only addition was the source. (Pharos ] on the talk page that AndreJustAndre's information aobut 1885 information was erroneous; AndreJustAndre then felt it was to include 1885 and used wording that makes no sense. ] (]) 19:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::POINT is when you ''disrupt'' Misplaced Pages to prove a point. I invited you politely to revert yourself and reminded you of 1RR. Is 1RR waiveable? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also it's not at all clear that the 1885 information is erroneous. That's in an active discussion on talk. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Okay, if I see correctly, this complaint is mostly about formalities. I can do this too. Where was the reported user formally notified about the contentious topic restrictions in this area? ] (]) 05:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Huh. Guess if he hasn't. This can be closed then. I'll notify him now.
			::::<s>He was in 2021: </s> Nvm, that's another area. He was warned in 2021 for unrelated area. I'll withdraw this report since user was never warned of A-I sanctions that I can tell. That is my mistake. I've seen him around this area a lot but apparently, nobody ever warned him. Have now done so. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned; indefinitely blocked) ==

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Zyn225}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267343878\|18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
			# {{diff2\|1267343718\|18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
			# {{diff2\|1267343494\|18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
			# {{diff2\|1267342322\|18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267343727\|18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing."
			# {{diff2\|1267343865\|18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning notice on ]."

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


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

			Single purpose account, does not grasp ] ]. ] 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			:I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.
			:I think some people are talking a Misplaced Pages page personally. Especially the anti Islam users.
			:A translation for the name chosen by Allah in his holy revelation to humanity sounds illogical to me. Do you use the translation of your name when you travel to a new country?
			:It's very clear some people are deliberately ignorant because of their personal beliefs. I am surprised this is even allowed from a non Muslim to edit a page about Islam. Clearly you're doing what you like. This is a Misplaced Pages page where people come to learn. How would they even say the Shahada if you misguide them like this. The Shahada must be said with the True name Allah. ] (]) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{re\|Zyn225}} The place to discuss your change is at ]. The reasons I'm not blocking you for edit-warring is because you are new and because you were not warned about edit-warring. I must also tell you, though, your idea of how Misplaced Pages works is wrong. We work by consensus, not by an editor's personal beliefs. Also, we do not restrict editors from voting on articles because of their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even their "expertise" in the subject matter. You are '''warned''' that if you return to edit-warring, you risk being blocked without further notice.--] (]) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] the user was warned about disruptive editing, but not edit warring and 3RR specifically. ] ] 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I know.--] (]) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::New yes but if I knew this is how information is served to normal people I would have stopped coming to this site ages ago. So let's be logical about the Shahada; the Testimony. So basically according to editors and consensus if someone says "There's no God but God" and "Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the servant and messenger of God" -- th
			:::FYI Prophet Muhammad did not even know the word "GOD". This is not the message that the messenger delivered. The Holy revealation; The Holy Quran is very clear about the identity of Allah. If you make a translation of the name you literally misguide everyone including yourself. This needn't debating when you think of it. Basically if a non Muslim from Siberia would come to Shahada page they'd get a word that English speakers non Muslims use. No Muslim uses the word "God" not in the Adhan, not in the prayers. Somethings should be transliterated otherwise it's misinterpretation. Also some translators in hope of selling religion and making people believe have normalized using the word God. Because let's be honest there is some kind of fear in some non Muslims when used the word Allah.
			:::Well what can I say except that everything would be clear when our soul reaches the throat. When we become corpses decomposing to skeletons. Then would we believe. Then would we become mindful of our creator. Grateful for every creation of Allah we enjoy everyday and every breath we take without paying anything. Gratitude that is not within disbelievers. Misplaced Pages needs better management. This is not acceptable that you let whoever hav upe an opinion about things they don't know. What do you except from disbelivers when you put this to vote? Do you expect them to accept the name Allah? ] (]) 19:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] you can either learn to work with disbelievers or you can go elsewhere. ] ] 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::No disbelievers have the right or the knowledge to educate the world about their creator Allah, and about religion. It's mockery when you do that. I am working with disbelievers; the Shahada should be properly translated so they are properly educated. If you say the translation you made of the Shahada you are not a Muslim. Jibrail (as) brought the word "Allah" with the revelations as per the command of Allah. Its not from Arabic speaking people and their tradition as you've stated.
			:::::Listen wether you believe or not believe its your choice, wether you accept or not that too your choice but to put the wrong and misinterpreted knowledge to the mass that's a heinous crime. It seems to me all the fuss and debate about this issue because these editors just can't accept the word Allah. Muslim is someone who submits their will to Allah as every other creation have done. Because the will of Allah is what people call the law of physics but its the law and will of Allah. So a non Muslim disbeliever should go elsewhere and not try to edit an Islamic page. ] (]) 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Blocked indefinitely per ] ] ] 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{re\|EvergreenFir}} I don't think my warning worked. Thanks for taking care of it - I was eating lunch. :-) --] (]) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"There is no God but God" --- is that your translation of the Shahada? Do you realize how illiterate and illogical the translation sounds when you don't use the true name of Allah? Not to mention the above statement is not the Shahada anymore. One of the 3 questions asked in the grave is Who is your Creator/Lord/Ilah/God? The true answer is Allah, I suppose you would not answer them with the very question you would be asked. Majority of humans can not say the truth. Because they did not worship their creator and now we are here trying to debate the Name? Well guess what all these translations would do no help. You would be called a liar. So consider the information people taking from here; it's far from being right and the truth. I do not accept this as a Muslim. How is this even logical that non Muslims are creating and editing topics about Muslims. Like thanks but no thanks. Not like this; misinterpreted to the core. ] (]) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2017–2019 Saudi Arabian purge}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267352536\|19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) reverted vandalism by grudge-bearing stalker"
			# {{diff2\|1267352090\|19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1266663622\|17:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267340515\|18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers ]"
			# {{diff2\|1267350962\|18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording ]"
			# {{diff2\|1267352206\|19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Unexplained content removal ]"
			# {{diff2\|1267352678\|19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal ]"

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


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

			Repeated edit warring on multiple pages with multiple users. User has strange knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy for an account only 5 days old, I would request a ] on this individual also. ] (]) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This is a bad faith report by a user who is seemingly just enraged that I can find guidelines in the manual of style and follow them. They reverted four times at ], where I had removed a redundant restatement of the article's title. Then they evidently decided they would like to bother me more, so reverted an edit I had made several days ago to ], for no reason whatsoever. I find their behaviour to be extremely unpleasant and very consciously harmful to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] I've seen your frivolous edits in multiple pages of "List of people executed in the United States (Yearly)" and I blatantly disagree with your edits.
			::He isn't "enraged", @] is actually right about reporting you, you've made multiple frivolous edits on other pages such as ], in every article, you'd see a "talk" page, which you can discuss about what to edit, and you've blatantly ignore his messages and repeatedly purging his message in your profile talk page.
			::In your message, you've stated that his behavior is "extremely unpleasant", but apparently, you're the one that is purging his messages in your profile talk page as stated above, ignoring his verbal warning, therefore, you are being condescending by doing so.
			::You're currently blocked by @] for 24 hours, next time before proceeding to edit, please kindly used the "talk" page to discuss before proceeding to make frivolous edits. ] (]) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{re\|Jabust}} I am not the one continuing to revert edits. You found the guidelines on the manual of style only 4 days after creating a brand new account??? That is extremely suspicious. You also refused to even discuss the matter and just reverted all the edits. I undid my edit on the ] in good faith because I am not continuing to edit war unlike yourself. ] (]) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] ] 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result:48 hour block) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Infernal City}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482274
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482193
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482158
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482128
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482079
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481888
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481865
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481818
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481665
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267480293
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267481371
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267481332
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267481291
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267480660
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267479555
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Where%27s_Waldo%3F_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1267481191
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Where%27s_Waldo%3F_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1267481120
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Julian_Lefay&diff=prev&oldid=1267480926
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Julian_Lefay&diff=prev&oldid=1267480882
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Julian_Lefay&diff=prev&oldid=1267480926
			# Others (see ].)

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


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

			Persistent vandalism. Remove of content. ] (]) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			* I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. ] (]) 10:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bengali–Assamese script}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267607323\|21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267598936\|diff=1267605297\|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267604312\|21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
			## {{diff2\|1267605024\|21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
			## {{diff2\|1267605297\|21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "changed page number"
			# {{diff2\|1267593518\|20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
			# {{diff2\|1267529376\|14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267605728\|21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267603474\|21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2024 */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1267607080\|21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

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

			Makes changes to longstanding version to contentious topic, removes source, doesn't abide by ], keeps edit warring and even when discussion has started in the talk page. Note similar POV removal dated and also the use of minor ('''m''') in some of the edits which are not ]. ] (]) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Also note this POV arrangement . - ] (]) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week block) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2010: The Year We Make Contact}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Æ's old account wasn't working}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267674154\|04:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			# {{diff2\|1267671902\|04:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Multiple editors also do not support ''your'' synthesised stance."
			# {{diff2\|1267633237\|00:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Something bad is going to happen to all of us if we don't just shut up here. Something terrible."
			# {{diff2\|1267482436\|08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Drop it."
			# {{diff2\|1267472758\|07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Just drop it."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267479624\|08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1267669527\|03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267468706\|06:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"

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

			One editor is repeatedly restoring unsourced content to lead that is currently under discussion on talk page. Including me, two editors have reverted their edits and three editors have objected to the content on the talk page. – ] (]) 04:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			:Listen.
			:], you started this whole ordeal by reverting everyone's edits without taking any into consideration, and attempting to bludgeon the talk page with your comments. You have also broken 3RR rule multiple times. Now stop please. ] (]) 04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You can make up whatever narratives you want. I think your contributions to the talk page discussion speak for themselves. If you think I have violated a policy, then feel free to provide that evidence. You have also now made 5 reverts in 24 hours . – ] (]) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			* Æ's old account wasn't working blocked for a week. ] (]) 04:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Chance997}}

			'''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:'''

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

			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)

Latest revision as of 12:51, 6 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)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
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)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
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:Hippo43, IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by User:Mathnerd314159 (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: French mother sauces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:6C91:81FE:34E1:80E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:A9B8:61A6:B4BA:3525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other IP's with the same prefix

Previous version reverted to (Hippo43): Special:Diff/1261641655

Previous version reverted to (IP): Special:Diff/1262083607

Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:

Diffs of IP's reverts:

Special:Diff/1266834913 (probably same IP)
Special:Diff/1263386233
Special:Diff/1262743746
Special:Diff/1262467272

There are a few more, just look at the recent history which is nothing but reverts.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1262739350 (IP), Special:Diff/1237541954 (Hippo43, the IP warned them)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1261449232, discussion is still on talk at Talk:French_mother_sauces#Table_of_sauces

Diff of ANEW notice posted to Hippo43's talk page: Special:Diff/1266963033

Diff of ANEW notice posted to IP's talk page: Special:Diff/1266962827, Special:Diff/1266962969

Comments:
I made the table, so of course I would like to keep it in, but at this point neither the IP nor Hippo43 seems interested in a discussion at all. Please end this month-long edit war. :-( Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week Both editors, from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:GachaDog reported by User:64.32.125.197 (Result: Reporting editor blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:06, 15 December 2024 "We don’t need an owners field to put bigger companies as the owner"
15:03, 25 December 2024
03:01, 28 December 2024
06:43, 31 December 2024
03:36, 3 January 2025 "Because you can’t use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent. Crunchy roll is a Joint venture of SPT and Aniplex"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: December 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: Hello, here I have a user who still removing the infobox field from articles related to streaming services, media companies, conglomerates, etc., without reason, explicitly saying that it should not be used to indicate which top-level property if It is different from the parent company if all this is demonstrated with or without sources than if they actually own the same company. 64.32.125.197 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Because Crunchyroll is under Crunchyroll LLC. and is a “JOINT VENTURE” of both Sony Pictures Television and Aniplex. SPT is under Sony Pictures Entertainment which is under Sony Entertainment which is under Sony of America and the parent compamy Sony corporation. Aniplex is under Sony Music Japan which is under Sony Corporation. So yeah, Sony is not the direct owner of Crunchyroll. It’s owned through a joint venture, so that’s why i removed sony from owners field GachaDog (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours First, Gacha's reported reverts are a) stale at this point and b) spread out over a period of several days so they would not have been a violation even if reported in a timely fashion. Second, in the interim, 64.32 has clearly violated 3RR in the last day or so. Since editing on all infoboxes is a contentious topic, I have blocked them for 48 hours and alerted them to CTOPS (I left a notice on the article's talk page a while back, also). Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:76.68.24.171 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result: Blocked 3 months)

User being reported: 76.68.24.171 (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:

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

Comments: This user keeps making disruptive edits in Khulna Division. Also, this IP address is violating WP:NPA by making personal attacks. Also violating block evasion as well. I warned the IP address to the talk page but did not respond (see WP:COMMUNICATION). Further information will be discussed on the ANI noticeboard. Migfab008 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bbb23,

what about their other ip addresses?

They are using slang in edit summary.

check this.

@Bbb23,
check their contributions 2607:FEA8:571B:8000:21F7:A044:CB68:F9D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Cerium4B —Talk? • 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bbb23,
User also uses these IPs to support their edits:
2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d81a:9c9d:4833:65a4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d8c:6de5:ff66:5c6c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2605:8d80:6433:5419:acb6:e682:2454:6031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After block expiration

2607:fea8:571b:8000:91c9:e741:c1ee:5aa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2607:fea8:571b:8000:9979:b44e:bfc2:f9e9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2607:fea8:571b:8000:b072:749e:a671:e7ad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think a range block is needed. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 16:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:contributions/2607:FEA8:571B:8000:0:0:0:0/64 for one month and painfully/tediously reverted all their edits. The other IPs listed haven't edited since November.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bbb23

now check this

user talk:Cerium4B#Bari koi tor fokirnir jaat?
2605:8D80:6432:8C67:E42E:8C4:6EAF:1E4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— Cerium4B —Talk? • 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to block for one edit; what does it mean? A machine translation of the subject header works, but I tried the body and got nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait I’m translating it. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 17:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

“Breed of a beggar, dog. Breed of Bengali medium. You know nothing about wiki edit(with slangs), why have you come here? Tell me Where do u live? Otherwise I’ll call army and peel your skin. Breed of roadside slum.”

N.B chasa, baal has no English translation but a serious slangs in Bengali language, I’ve not added this in the translation.

It’s like this @Bbb23 — Cerium4B —Talk? • 17:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23,

again with another IP

user talk:Cerium4B#Bari koi tor fokirnir jaat? — Cerium4B —Talk? • 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's disgusting. Unfortunately, a range block that encompasses both IPs is too wide and has too much collateral damage. I've rev/deleted the posts and semi-protected your Talk page for one day.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23,

Thank you so much for your time.

You gave me a lot of support, and it means a lot. 😊 — Cerium4B —Talk? • 18:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:138.88.222.231 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Already blocked)

User being reported: 138.88.222.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Citation"
17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Link"
Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 15:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Links"
4. 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Vineyard"
5. 15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit California"
6. 15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Links"
7. 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Citation"
Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
2. 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
2. 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
3. 18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
4. 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
5. 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
6. 18:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
7. 03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
8. 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
Consecutive edits made from 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
2. 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
3. 18:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
4. 18:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
5. 18:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
6. 19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
7. 19:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
8. 19:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
9. 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
10. 19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
11. 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
12. 01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
13. 01:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
14. 15:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
15. 15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
16. 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
17. 15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
18. 15:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
19. 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
20. 15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
21. 15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
22. 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
23. 15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
24. 15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
25. 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
26. 15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
27. 15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
28. 16:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
29. 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
30. 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
31. 17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
32. 17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
33. 17:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
34. 17:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
35. 17:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
36. 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
37. 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Paul Pelosi."
17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Paul Pelosi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See Talk:Paul Pelosi#Property portfolio

Comments:

EW with IDHT and copyvios. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User uses disingenuous edit summaries ("Edit Citation") to reassert edits , as noted by the difference between successive attempts (addition of three do-nothing spaces to cite template). _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo reported by User:Iljhgtn (Result: No violation)

User being reported: GreenMeansGo (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: I do not often use ANI, as I feel that it is far preferable to discuss and find a peaceful resolution, but in this case I feel my hand has been forced. I attempted to speak with the edit warring editor many times, and even asked them to self revert on many occassions, both on their own talk page as well as the article in question's talk page. They mockingly said "Have fun I guess." about coming to ANI, though I would have much rather we continued to discuss the subject and the sources in dispute on the talk page. At this point they are 5 edits in to a edit war and I politely stopped at 3 edits so as not to violate WP:3RR. I am a bit surprised it came to this and I apologize in advance to any admin who may now need to block the offending editor and revert to the prior consensus and stable lead on the article which had been present for many months before this editor aggressively became involved just today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iljhgtn (talk • contribs)

Well, the first edit is just a crappy source that I randomly found pop up in a change on my watchlist. The two edits are consecutive. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page and offer a resolution. But since this seems to be a slow-motion edit war by OP going back months, we may have some OWN issues to unpack. GMG 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And again, I would just say that any points to be made should be made on the article talk page, but that reverting 5 times (or 4 depending on how you count them), still is in violation of the 3RR rule which is pretty clear and strict. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I see three reverts, 1. 2, and 3. This maybe could maybe be a revert, depending on how long that source has been sitting in the article and if you're squinting hard enough. Iljhgtn also has made three reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit counts as a partial revert not of the full text with all sources included but absolutely includes the primary material being discussed in the talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That was captured in my first diff. Consecutive edits are a single revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The request currently stands out there for the editor to self-revert and for the discussion to resume on the article talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh good lord. You've been warring on this since at least 2023. GMG 18:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Where have you been in this discussion since you mentioned that this article is on your talk page? My first seeing you there was today, and you proceeded to force a new version of the lead and revert in rapid succession to your desired version. Again, I am happy to discuss this on the article talk page if you would self-revert and continue the discussion there. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you dispute a single source, I think that made sense for removal, due to the letter submission aspect of it, but in general I think it would have been best to discuss further on the talk page as well as maybe provide some reliable sources of your own or dispute the content of the other sources at the point of the talk page, and not simply to angrily enter into a series of reverts.

Here were some of the other sources by the way, and I don't think you've disputed the reliability of these: LA Times, Rapid City Journal, The Oregonian.

Though you've now removed all of these from the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Cool. Go...like...get consensus. Just because you made a change and reverted it for a year and half doesn't mean you have consensus. GMG 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not always clear, and does not always merely side with a majority. Consensus is also reflected at least in part by reflecting what the reliable sources say. All I have asked is that we have a discussion around the reliable sources, and you self-revert in the meantime. Your response has been only to be dismissive and to not engage with the point raised, which is that we must WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a partial revert of a November 30 edit. I would not consider this part of 3RR for today. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No violation Iljhgtn and GreenMeansGo, take the discussion elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for reviewing this. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Tamilfilmsbuff reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) to 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262246919 by Srivin (talk)"
2. 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262236945 by Kailash29792 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also at Dharmam Engey. His edits don't match the sources, and reverts good edits that do. Also biased towards the subject as he removes mixed/negative reviews, as seen in Kunkhumam. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There's only two, their first edits to the article in a couple of months. And, if there are issues at other articles, maybe this is properly handled at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:justthefacts reported by User:The Cheesedealer (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: 2025 New Orleans truck attack

User being reported: User:justthefacts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , the whole section

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

Comments:

User insists on adding irrelevant material in the lede. Irrelevancy aside, he fails to get consensus to include the challenged material (by 2 users at least in the talk page) per WP:ONUS and edit-wars instead to get it in.

I'd love to add also that he argued that the religion of the suspect in the lede is Absolutely relevant to the potential motive for the attack and therefore in this edit summary which can only imply that he believes that being a Muslim is enough of a motive to commit terrorist attacks.

Warned No 3RR violation and user was warned of the 1RR restriction after their last edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Andra Febrian reported by User:HiLux duck (Result: No violation)

Comments: This editor has reverted many useful edits, and most of my edits, other users' edits, without explaining their reverting of edits with citations .

No violation EvergreenFir (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:إيان reported by User:AndreJustAndre (Result: Withdrawn)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note: WP:1RR is active on this page.

(removes 1885 which I added)
(removes 1885 and the quote "The man credited with coining the word ‘Zionism’ in 1885, Nathan Birnbaum," which I added)

See ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Zionism#§_Terminology

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

Comments:

Note attempt to invite user to self-revert 1RR violation. Yes, consensus required is also active on this page, but 1RR is still being violated here. Andre🚐 07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre but إيان is correct that the addition market no sense... This is not something to drag someone to ANEW over. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So 1RR is waived when the edits don't appeal to someone? I thought 1RR was a bright line rule. Andre🚐 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

And in my view the edits make sense and I thought edit warring is wrong, even if you're right? Are you weighing in on the content, or the behavior? Andre🚐 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, this is so petty AndreJustAndre. WP:POINTY vibes. When they brought this up on my talk page, they noted the tenuous nature of their grievance: While the two edits are slightly different, in both cases you removed the addition of 1885, arguably, two reverts, violating the 1RR sanction on this article, emphasis my own. When they invited me to self-revert, I invited them to seek consensus on the talk page. Instead, they decided to waste everyone's time at ANEW.

I didn't go in and explain my edits because I didn't think it was worth it, but it appears the first time I removed 1885 was accidental as I was trying to manually manage an edit conflict. I thought the only addition was the source. (Pharos pointed out on the talk page that AndreJustAndre's information aobut 1885 information was erroneous; AndreJustAndre then felt it was still necessary to include 1885 and used wording that makes no sense. إيان (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

POINT is when you disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point. I invited you politely to revert yourself and reminded you of 1RR. Is 1RR waiveable? Andre🚐 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Also it's not at all clear that the 1885 information is erroneous. That's in an active discussion on talk. Andre🚐 21:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if I see correctly, this complaint is mostly about formalities. I can do this too. Where was the reported user formally notified about the contentious topic restrictions in this area? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Guess if he hasn't. This can be closed then. I'll notify him now.

~~He was in 2021:~~ Nvm, that's another area. He was warned in 2021 for unrelated area. I'll withdraw this report since user was never warned of A-I sanctions that I can tell. That is my mistake. I've seen him around this area a lot but apparently, nobody ever warned him. Have now done so. Andre🚐 05:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Zyn225 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Warned; indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Zyn225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Shahada."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Single purpose account, does not grasp WP:ALLAH soetermans. 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.

I think some people are talking a Misplaced Pages page personally. Especially the anti Islam users.

A translation for the name chosen by Allah in his holy revelation to humanity sounds illogical to me. Do you use the translation of your name when you travel to a new country?

It's very clear some people are deliberately ignorant because of their personal beliefs. I am surprised this is even allowed from a non Muslim to edit a page about Islam. Clearly you're doing what you like. This is a Misplaced Pages page where people come to learn. How would they even say the Shahada if you misguide them like this. The Shahada must be said with the True name Allah. Zyn225 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zyn225: The place to discuss your change is at Talk:Shahada. The reasons I'm not blocking you for edit-warring is because you are new and because you were not warned about edit-warring. I must also tell you, though, your idea of how Misplaced Pages works is wrong. We work by consensus, not by an editor's personal beliefs. Also, we do not restrict editors from voting on articles because of their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even their "expertise" in the subject matter. You are warned that if you return to edit-warring, you risk being blocked without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23 the user was warned about disruptive editing, but not edit warring and 3RR specifically. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I know.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

New yes but if I knew this is how information is served to normal people I would have stopped coming to this site ages ago. So let's be logical about the Shahada; the Testimony. So basically according to editors and consensus if someone says "There's no God but God" and "Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the servant and messenger of God" -- th

FYI Prophet Muhammad did not even know the word "GOD". This is not the message that the messenger delivered. The Holy revealation; The Holy Quran is very clear about the identity of Allah. If you make a translation of the name you literally misguide everyone including yourself. This needn't debating when you think of it. Basically if a non Muslim from Siberia would come to Shahada page they'd get a word that English speakers non Muslims use. No Muslim uses the word "God" not in the Adhan, not in the prayers. Somethings should be transliterated otherwise it's misinterpretation. Also some translators in hope of selling religion and making people believe have normalized using the word God. Because let's be honest there is some kind of fear in some non Muslims when used the word Allah.

Well what can I say except that everything would be clear when our soul reaches the throat. When we become corpses decomposing to skeletons. Then would we believe. Then would we become mindful of our creator. Grateful for every creation of Allah we enjoy everyday and every breath we take without paying anything. Gratitude that is not within disbelievers. Misplaced Pages needs better management. This is not acceptable that you let whoever hav upe an opinion about things they don't know. What do you except from disbelivers when you put this to vote? Do you expect them to accept the name Allah? Zyn225 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zyn225 you can either learn to work with disbelievers or you can go elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No disbelievers have the right or the knowledge to educate the world about their creator Allah, and about religion. It's mockery when you do that. I am working with disbelievers; the Shahada should be properly translated so they are properly educated. If you say the translation you made of the Shahada you are not a Muslim. Jibrail (as) brought the word "Allah" with the revelations as per the command of Allah. Its not from Arabic speaking people and their tradition as you've stated.

Listen wether you believe or not believe its your choice, wether you accept or not that too your choice but to put the wrong and misinterpreted knowledge to the mass that's a heinous crime. It seems to me all the fuss and debate about this issue because these editors just can't accept the word Allah. Muslim is someone who submits their will to Allah as every other creation have done. Because the will of Allah is what people call the law of physics but its the law and will of Allah. So a non Muslim disbeliever should go elsewhere and not try to edit an Islamic page. Zyn225 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOT HERE EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I don't think my warning worked. Thanks for taking care of it - I was eating lunch. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"There is no God but God" --- is that your translation of the Shahada? Do you realize how illiterate and illogical the translation sounds when you don't use the true name of Allah? Not to mention the above statement is not the Shahada anymore. One of the 3 questions asked in the grave is Who is your Creator/Lord/Ilah/God? The true answer is Allah, I suppose you would not answer them with the very question you would be asked. Majority of humans can not say the truth. Because they did not worship their creator and now we are here trying to debate the Name? Well guess what all these translations would do no help. You would be called a liar. So consider the information people taking from here; it's far from being right and the truth. I do not accept this as a Muslim. How is this even logical that non Muslims are creating and editing topics about Muslims. Like thanks but no thanks. Not like this; misinterpreted to the core. Zyn225 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Jabust reported by User:Inexpiable (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267352173 by Inexpiable (talk) reverted vandalism by grudge-bearing stalker"
19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267351775 by Inexpiable (talk)"
17:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266631201 by Thenightaway (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated edit warring on multiple pages with multiple users. User has strange knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy for an account only 5 days old, I would request a Check User on this individual also. Inexpiable (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a bad faith report by a user who is seemingly just enraged that I can find guidelines in the manual of style and follow them. They reverted four times at List of people executed in the United States in 2007, where I had removed a redundant restatement of the article's title. Then they evidently decided they would like to bother me more, so reverted an edit I had made several days ago to 2017-2019 Saudi Arabian purge, for no reason whatsoever. I find their behaviour to be extremely unpleasant and very consciously harmful to Misplaced Pages. Jabust (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jabust I've seen your frivolous edits in multiple pages of "List of people executed in the United States (Yearly)" and I blatantly disagree with your edits.

He isn't "enraged", @Inexpiable is actually right about reporting you, you've made multiple frivolous edits on other pages such as List of people executed in the United States in 2024, in every article, you'd see a "talk" page, which you can discuss about what to edit, and you've blatantly ignore his messages and repeatedly purging his message in your profile talk page.

In your message, you've stated that his behavior is "extremely unpleasant", but apparently, you're the one that is purging his messages in your profile talk page as stated above, ignoring his verbal warning, therefore, you are being condescending by doing so.

You're currently blocked by @EvergreenFir for 24 hours, next time before proceeding to edit, please kindly used the "talk" page to discuss before proceeding to make frivolous edits. TheCheapTalker (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jabust: I am not the one continuing to revert edits. You found the guidelines on the manual of style only 4 days after creating a brand new account??? That is extremely suspicious. You also refused to even discuss the matter and just reverted all the edits. I undid my edit on the List of people executed in the United States in 2007 in good faith because I am not continuing to edit war unlike yourself. Inexpiable (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result:48 hour block)

User being reported: 2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent vandalism. Remove of content. Migfab008 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Tejoshkriyo reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
2. 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
3. 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "changed page number"
20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bengali–Assamese script."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ new section"
21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

Makes changes to longstanding version to contentious topic, removes source, doesn't abide by WP:BRD, keeps edit warring and even when discussion has started in the talk page. Note similar POV removal dated 10 December 2023 and also the use of minor (m) in some of the edits which are not WP:MINOR. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Also note this POV arrangement . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Æ's old account wasn't working reported by User:Notwally (Result: 1 week block)

User being reported: Æ's old account wasn't working (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
04:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267669354 by Notwally (talk) Multiple editors also do not support your synthesised stance."
00:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Something bad is going to happen to all of us if we don't just shut up here. Something terrible."
08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267479503 by Notwally (talk) Drop it."
07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Just drop it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."
03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2010: The Year We Make Contact."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

06:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"

Comments:

One editor is repeatedly restoring unsourced content to lead that is currently under discussion on talk page. Including me, two editors have reverted their edits and three editors have objected to the content on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Listen.

Notwally, you started this whole ordeal by reverting everyone's edits without taking any into consideration, and attempting to bludgeon the talk page with your comments. You have also broken 3RR rule multiple times. Now stop please. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

You can make up whatever narratives you want. I think your contributions to the talk page discussion speak for themselves. If you think I have violated a policy, then feel free to provide that evidence. You have also now made 5 reverts in 24 hours . – notwally (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Æ's old account wasn't working blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: )

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)

Categories: