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 20:42, 28 January 2012 editIIIraute (talk \| contribs)5,842 edits →User:IIIraute, self-admitted as IP 89.204.152.55, reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:54, 8 January 2025 edit undoSomeguywhosbored (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users807 edits →User:Garudam reported by User:Someguywhosbored (Result: ): EditTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{offer help}}
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	]
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~177~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	</noinclude>
	{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude>
	__TOC__</noinclude>
	<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->
	<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	<!-- dummy edit -->

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~List~~ of ~~accidents~~ ~~and~~ ~~incidents involving commercial aircraft~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Chance997}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Editor did similar reverts two days ago, with possible sockpuppetry involved.

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

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

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|<!-- ICloud -->}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|<!-- CharlesDayton -->}}

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

			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)
	Previous version reverted to:

			I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert: Add HTTP information-evidence
	* 2nd revert: removed
	* 3rd revert: Add object
	* 4th revert: removed-identified as vandalism

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	<!-- 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 -->
	24/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473047273

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
	25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473162497

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ToadGuy101}}
	25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473206141

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:CharlesDayton&action=edit&redlink=1

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473255302
			# {{diff2\|1267771905\|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267757010\|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
			# {{diff2\|1267751151\|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267747621\|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473255489
			# {{diff2\|1267751597\|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff2\|1267301347\|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

			User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1000mods}} <br />
	*{{AN3\|m}} ] (]) 05:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mindxeraser}}
	**I think that is precisely what the user did, replacing for instance  "<tt><nowiki><!-- Place name of article here --></nowiki></tt>"  by  {{nowrap\|"<tt><nowiki><!-- iCloud --></nowiki></tt>"}}.  --] 10:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Not blocked) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Occupy Wall Street}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Amadscientist}}
			#
			#
			#

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

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

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

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

			{{AN3\|b\|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
	<!-- 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 -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fernanda Torres}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He's been blocked for 3RR before

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# {{diff2\|1267808569\|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
	This is on top of another round of disruption a few days ago, in which he did exactly the same kind of thing. See I've explained to him many times, but he just doesn't get it. I should note that that when he makes a change it's up to other people to try to gain consensus for ''not'' having the change. He was changing a longstanding section of the article. ] 06:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267807858\|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267807213\|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806982\|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806103\|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:Funny, but that fourth revert was after you reverted against the consensus of editors, and the others were due to another editor refusing to stick to that consensus. I also dispute your action in making that revert while a dispute is ongoing at DR. You make the statement "another round" like this is an ongoing issue with me, but it appears it is you who are edit warring and not using the talk page OR respecting the consensus process. You also seem to be attempting to find fault at my every turn since your last DR was kicked back to the talk page as deadlocked. Sir, you purposely reverted that page knowing I would revert back as consensus has not determined it to be included and then came to report me here. That goes against the very spirit of the 3RR and Misplaced Pages in general.--] (]) 06:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267807698\|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267808131\|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	With this editor, he misunderstands just about everything he's saying... there was no consensus for change on the article. (Also, the DR/N he mentions was supportive of my position). I didn't want changes to be edit warred in if people objected, so reverted pending discussion, whereupon instead of taking the time to gain consensus on the talk page, Amadscientist reverted back. He claims there was consensus: the "silent consensus" for his edits was broken the first time Racingstripes reverted him. He doesn't understand BRD in spite of my having referred him to it any number of times. ] 06:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	:Uhm...there are only two DR's. The one you made is now closed ] and most certainly was not supportive of your position. Deadlocked means deadlocked and the comment left by the mediator was that they were kicking it back to the talk page with two goals, one, that we find actual guidelines that support either position, instead of the essays we were both using and you are still using here, and second if there is no guideline (which is what they suspected) that we take the proper route to generate a discussion. While this is indeed what I stated in the DR you brought and was declined or kicked back, I am not taking that language as being supportive of my position....just that we have other options than taking this immediatly to DR...which you did, not me. I think you misunderstand policy and guidelines and right now you seem a bit obsessed--] (]) 06:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	{{AN3\|not}}: Based on the advice of another administrator (]) this user appears to have ceased the edit war and is engaging in dispute resolution. Therefore, a block is not necessary at this time. Amadscientist is advised that no matter how right one may be, edit warring is always considered disruption. --] ] 15:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
			{{AN3\|b\|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Stale~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Cole~~ ~~Thornhart~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Soapfan2013}}<br/>{{userlinks\|Musicfreak7676}}

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

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff2\|1267452946\|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1267525585\|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			# {{diff2\|1267644988\|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{diff2\|1267646582\|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u><br />Do I need to provide reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cole_Thornhart&action=history. Soapfan2013 was already warned, and there were no further edits afterwards... Still, it was reported before... what do you think? --] (]) 07:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267699885\|diff=1267736737\|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|s}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
			: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} (by {{u\|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ~~IP 88~~.~~112~~.89.63 reported by ] (Result: ~~Stale~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Finnish presidential election, 2012~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|88.112.89.63}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	Diffs: , , , , , (6 reverts/12 hours)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	] is full of warnings.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>Comments:</u><br />The candidate actually ''is'' gay, so I wasn't sure if it is also vandalism, or just plain edit warring. --] (]) 13:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|s}}. It was vandalism, by the way. {{=)\|wink}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	== ] Reported By ] (Result: No need to block) ==

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Edit waring in continually restoring material that is totally unsourced - and has been so tagged for several months. No attempt to cite the content has been made in that time
	Also violation of 3-revert.

	1st revert of unsourced: ]

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	2nd revert of unsourced: ]

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	3rd revert of unsourced: ]

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	4th revert of unsourced: ]
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	As the first revert was 19:40 yesterday that means that they were within 24 hours. A discussion has been made on user's talk page but he seems to believe that the unsourced material is entitled to be there. ] (]) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:]. See section below. 109.153.242.10 is currently at 5RR: , , , , . Especially troubling is his claim in the edit summaries that the 3RR rule doesn't apply to him. ---] (]) 15:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	*'''No need to block'''. See below. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No need to block) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wax thermostatic element}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|109.153.242.10}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
	Obsessive section blanking by the anon IP, on the grounds that an old and non-contentious section has been tagged as unref'ed for some months. Whilst correct per strict policy, their hair-trigger re-deletion is making it impossible for anyone (i.e. me) to add the trivially available references to it, without getting trampled in edit conflicts. This is just disruption for disruption's sake, not any sense of collaborative editing. ] (]) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	~~: Oh, and if anyone would like to print it out and frame it, this is me agreeing with {{user\|Wtshymanski}}. Again. Twice in a week.~~ ] (]) 14:48, 26 January ~~2012~~ (UTC)		] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	::Anon IP is at 5RR by my count (, , , , ). BTW, I agree with Wtshymanski too! The world has gone mad!! (smile) Seriously, though, despite good-natured joking about never agreeing, I have on several occasions left notes on Wtshymanski's talk page complementing him when he makes an especially good edit. He dismisses the sincere compliments as sarcasm, but I know that deep in his heart he loves me... (GROUP HUG) --] (]) 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	::As was discussed between myself and another editor on an article talk page; the Admin noticeboard and the offending users page. ALL material on Misplaced Pages must be supported by verifiable citations ]. As notified ANY EDITOR is entitled to remove unsourced material. In that altercation, I was trying to revert the patently obvious, but the other user kept deleting it as unsourced, claiming that a citation was required that something existed, when it was clearly visible to almost any computer user. Misplaced Pages admin supported the other editor reafirming his right to delete ''anything'' that is unsourced and also notified him that the 3-revert rule did not apply when removing unsourced material (as it is Misplaced Pages policy). The material in question has been tagged for months and no attempt has been made by anyone to provide references that the material is even factual (which it isn't) ] (]) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	*While it's true that, in general, all material on Misplaced Pages should be cited to reliable sources {{endash}} though there are exceptions, of course: ] {{endash}}, when Andy told you that he was going to provide sources it would have been courteous of you to stop edit warring, allowing him to do just that. In this instance, your behaviour was rather disruptive, honestly. Assuming the edit war has now stopped, however, I've closed this report as '''no need to block'''. <p>By the way, removing unsourced material is not a 3-rr exemption. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* There's more to this than first appears. The first edit of this series wasn't a puritanical removal of unsourced material for being unsourced, it was actually an '']'' of more unsourced material, pushing an incorrect explanation of the system covered n the article. When Wtshymanski reverted this as incorrect, they responded by blanking the entire section, then clinging blindly to policy to defend this. ] (]) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
	**Which would make the IP's actions incredibly ]. However, blocks are preventative and not punitive; so, if we can stop the ongoing disruption using a simple warning instead of a block, then I'd say all the better. If the IP editor undertakes not to revert any longer, then there's no need for anything else. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
	*** There are also now two specific refs added, from an extremely reliable source, which both support the point of the article as it was, and directly refute the content added by the IP. Not that I shouldn't be installing a catflap right now instead of this pointless argument. 8-( ] (]) 15:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 h.) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
			# {{diff2\|1268002110\|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Newport}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|83.193.200.43 }}

	<!-- 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>
	Previous version reverted to:
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	* 1st revert:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			#
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	The editor has not made any attempt to seek consensus for his/her view that "East Wales" is more appropriate terminology than "South Wales", to describe the location of the city. ] (]) 16:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
			Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
	*{{AN3\|b\|a day}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 16:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .

			:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.

			*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Real Madrid C.F.}} <br />
			*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Crashwheelx}}
			*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”

			*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
	<!-- 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. -->
			*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”

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

			*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
			*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert: made while I was preparing this report.

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning 2:

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	There is an entire section labelled as "Most successful Spanish club" on the article's talk page. --] (]) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Editor does explain edits in summary and has outlined an accusation against one other editor but doesn't discuss on talk page where a consensus has been achieved. --] (]) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}}. Walter, I know situations like this can be frustrating, but I'll also caution you that using Twinkle to revert someone as a vandal during a content dispute is not acceptable either. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	:: Understood. Should have self-reverted as it was a slip (Vandal is immediately under undo) but I was pressed for time and immediately recognized that I would have to file this report which would take even more time. I will be more careful in the future. --] (]) 19:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

	== ], self-admitted as IP , reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kat Von D}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|IIIraute}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	Note: ] conceded he was IP 89.204.152.55

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: at 11:48, 26 January 2012
	* 2nd revert: as 89.204.152.55 at 15:40, 26 January 2012
	* 3rd revert: at 15:46, 26 January 2012
	* 4th revert: 10:32, 27 January 2012

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	After I made an RfC request at at 03:40, 27 January 2012, and informed him of the RfC at 03:38, 27 January 2012 , he continued editing ] regardless, and he sarcastically copy-pasted the bulk of my 3RR/RfC post on his page — and even though copypasting "Please do not edit the article in question while the RfC is in progress," he then did so himself, resulting in his 4th revert. --] (]) 14:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	HHe is conflating two separate issues — the name of Von D's father and the name of Von D — despite my repeated attempts to have these separated. Though he began another RfC below mine, about Von D's name, his posted the exact same research findings under both RfCs, despite the former being a separate issue from the latter.

	He has exhibited much "I'm not listening" behavior and such uncivil remarks as "...are you able to read?" — which is ironic since not one but two editors believe he is misreading quotes: SEE . --] (]) 14:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	:I am not that good in all these technical & bureaucratic issues; the only thing I see is that the user Tenebrae did at least as many reverts and is trying to bully me out of this matter, just because he was proven wrong (as I introduced new US goverment documents as sources). I have no bad intentions - I want to improve the article; Tenebrae is just a bad loser. Looking at all the edits this user made over the last months, Tenebrae seems to think he owns that article, basically reverting every edit done by any other user.--] (]) 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
	::The user Tenebrae has now changed the article again, speculating that she might have "changed" her name during adulthood?? There are tree official US government documents and countless secondary sources, interviews, etc. that state her name as "Katherine von Drachenberg", but Tenebrae is ignoring all of this, always referring to her websites bio that was written by a friend where she gives her father's name as "Rene Drachenberg". Please have a look at the following documents: http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85049892# & http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85049892/APP20100531102050/Application/4/27-May-2010/sn/false#p=1 (page 1, 3 & 4).--] (]) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::Admins do not adjudicate content dispute, so I cannot tell who's right. I can, however, tell that you're both warring {{endash}} after all, 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 {{endash}}. We now have three choices: you can both be blocked, the article can be protected or a more civilised manner to solve this dispute can be tried. My advice to you both would be to follow ]... But I'm ready to dish out blocks, if this does not work. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 15:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::I am wholeheartedly all for dispute resolution, and I will investigate options and ask him in good faith. He has, however, been uncivil, nasty and sarcastic, so I'm hesitant to engage with him to ask, and open myself up to further abuse. --] (]) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::Done. I have place a polite request with him at his talk page (Diff ).

	::::::maybe that helps to prove her real name: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6ToGLIx6PHUYTE0ZDcwODgtMjY1OC00MGIzLWJjYmEtYjUyZDM4NWY4MmFl&hl=en_US (note: an official name change due to marriage, divorce or court order needs to be documented in the passport).--] (]) 15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::That is simply not true, and I don't appreciate your trying to bluff about legal matters you know nothing about. You do ''not'' need a court order or anything else to have a different name on your passport than you were born with. Both my wife and I have have different names on our ''own'' passports, so the fact you would go so far as to make a false claim about passports and the law shows how little you're committed to truth and accuracy. That is amazing to me that someone would be so overemotionally caught up in this that they would spew a falsehood this way. No one is disputing her adult name. But her father's name, according to Kat herself, has no "von," and unless you're the E-Trade baby, perhaps, a newborn cannot go to court and petition for a name change.

	:::::::In any event, I took the admin's advice about dispute resolution. Why don't we let everyone see the kind of calm, rational you are? This is from ], :
	{{quote\|Would you be open to following the admin's advice on our 3RR page and pursuing with me dispute resolution at the ]? --] (]) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)}}

	{{quote\|As you are not really interested in improving the article, do whatever you think you have to do - although to prevent further damage, maybe it would be better if both our accounts got blocked, as IMHO your edits are ignorant, manipulative, contraproductive and only serve the support of your dogmatic, self-opinionated POV.--] (]) 02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)}}

	::::::::The admin put the same advice on you! You seem to forget that.--] (]) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::::::Yes, and I politely asked if you be willing to enter dispute resolution. You verbally abused with insults and name-calling me in your response. Let us make one thing clear: You do ''not'' have the right to verbally abuse and insult other people. Period. You need to stop. --] (]) 19:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


	::You did everything possible to manipulate the given fact that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg", persisting that her name was "Drachenberg" only. You discredited all secondary sources, interviews, the articles of major newspapersa such as the NYpost, the LaTimes, Spiegel, The DailyMail, broadcasters like ABC, CBS, etc. ,published literature, etc.etc.I had to first bring official US government documents as well as a copy of her passport until you would accept that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg".

	::Now, you are trying to do the same about her name of birth, speculating that she must have changed her name during adulthood, putting all your emphasis into the bio on her website that says that her father is "Rene Drachenberg" and - although it does not once - in the whole bio - directly say that her name is "Drachenberg" only, you persist on that one source, that isn't really one. You are the one making that speculative connection, just because it says that her father is called "Rene Drachenberg", so it also must be her name of birth. Again, you discredit all other sources - especially her published autobiography with a circulation of many thousand copies in which she gives both of her grandparents - as well as her own name as "von Drachenberg". In a second book written by her both, her brothers and her sisters name are given as "von Drachenberg". Redarding to your claim, her brother and sister also must have changed their names during adulthood. Again, for all those claims, you do not have a sigle source. Also, you discredit again several sources, such as from major newspapers and magazines that say that she was "born" von Drachenberg. So what's the point?--] (]) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::IIIraute, I would like to remind you that it is Misplaced Pages policy to ]. Comments like "you are not really interested in improving the article" will not help to resolve this dispute. Please take a more civil tone. --] ] 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::I wish to make a point of clarification to ]. I have not, in fact, discredited any of the published sources. None of them say her birth name was "von Drachenberg". They only say that is her adult name. The one thing we know unequivocally is that she herself says her father's name is simply "Drachenberg," a fact you seem unwilling to accept. --] (]) 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::And about that "passport image": That image is in a Google doc, so it's not from a public source on the Internet. Aside from being disallowed under the policy of ], you — whom I've already caught in a falsehood about passport laws — are suggesting that you, personally, in this age of ], somehow got Kat Von D to open up her passport for you to splash on the web. Really.

	::::I think any objective observer would say that this is highly unlikely. So that leaves, I think, three options: You Photoshopped a fake passport; you surreptitiously shot her open passport at an airport and have posted her private information for all to see; or you're a publicist or someone else with a WP:COI interest in polishing a mythology, even though Kat herself, from the lack of "von Drachenberg" in her own bio, on her own website, seems more interested in respecting her father's choice. Which is it? --] (]) 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	:::::You didn't catch me in anything; what a nonsense. Lots of the newspaper & broadcasting sources say literally "born" von Drachenberg! You say her fathers name was "Drachenberg"; I say both of her grandparents and all of her siblings are named "von Drachenberg" - that' what she writes in her published autobiography; and don't bring your "that's how it is done" in the USA, because you are speculating about the status of her family; apart from that she was NOT born in the USA but in Mexico, she was not an american citizen to the age of 5.

	:::::I did show you several official US goverment sources that prove her name. Her books have several parts with the name "von Drachenberg" and everyone is free to have a look for themselves. Kat von D has published the passport herself on her facebook page (where she also calls herself "von Drachenberg"). Here is another source for her passport: http://data.whicdn.com/images/18758706/1320433715094_f_thumb.jpg --] (]) 20:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	::::::USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2010-10-28-katvond28_ST_N.htm

	::::::LosAngelesTimes:http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/08/entertainment/et-laink8 --] (]) 20:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ansumane Mané}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|People's Republic of Bulgaria}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mewulwe}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: ]
	* 1st revert: ]

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

	This user just came off a 72 hour block for editwarring across multiple articles. He has now picked up were he left off. On ] he has now reverted '''nine times''' three other editors additions of academic sources based on his presumption that they must have copied wikipedia, however he has no actual evidence of this. On ] he is inserting ], the sources used do not support his addition. This is a highly disruptive user and it is high time he was stopped. ] (]) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
	**{{AN3\|b\|a week}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 17:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Electronic health record}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|InformaticsMD}}

	Previous version reverted to: {{oldid\|Electronic health record\|473379888\|19:14, 26 January 2012‎}}

	* 1st revert: {{diff\|Electronic health record\|473427286\|473391467\|00:09, 27 January 2012‎}} (IP)
	* 2nd revert: {{diff\|Electronic health record\|473540529\|473539844\|12:01, 27 January 2012‎}} (IP)
	* 3rd revert: {{diff\|Electronic health record\|473542251\|473541714\|17:12, 27 January 2012}}
	* 4th revert: {{diff\|Electronic health record\|473543323\|473542684\|17:22, 27 January 2012}}

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff\|User talk:InformaticsMD\|prev\|473542661\|17:14, 27 January 2012}}

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I only reverted once - per ], they should have gone to the talk page to get consensus for their edits at that point.

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

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

	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}}. --] ] 17:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|NYyankees51}}

	'''Time reported:''' 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

	Original removal:
	# <small>(edit summary: "unrelated; off topic")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "also unrelated, off topic")</small>

	Reverts:
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 473188967 by ] (]) see talk")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "per ], this article cannot be a forum for criticizing all of Santorum's comments on homosexuality; this article is specifically about the 2003 issue. Off-topic, coatrack. See talk.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 473477123 by ] (]) per ], discuss on talk before restoring")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 473519584 by ] (]) No, it's not pertinent. This is not a dumping ground for criticisms of his views. Discuss on talk.")</small>

	* Diff of warning:

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Editor has a long history of edit warring, warnings, and , including a current , demonstrating unwillingness to obtain consensus.

	Per ], "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached." In this instance, the editor has removed material five times in two days, which suggests that a block or additional topic ban is warranted.

	—] (]) 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b\|one week}} for edit warring. This is not the user's first EW block; they should know better by now. --] ] 17:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
	**Pity... they were good-faith BLP reverts, if misguided... --] 17:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
	***Unfortunately, good-faith edit warring is still edit warring. I don't judge the editor's intentions as malicious, but there is a repeating behavior problem. --] ] 17:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Heavy metal music}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Neilwoodcock}}

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

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

	*{{AN3\|b\|a day}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Screwball23}}

	'''Time reported:''' 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Time table of primaries and caucuses */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Primary schedule */ see talk page")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 473640794 by ] (]) - please contribute your rationale for your editing behavior on the talk page")</small>

	* Diff of warning:

	* ] on talk page

	User has been ignoring Misplaced Pages conventions concerning consensus even after informed about it and has been removing large portions of the article unilaterally, despite repeated complaints and disagreements. There are <s>4</s> 5 users in favor of the content in question remaining in the article, while 2 are opposed. User has not even allowed time for discussion, the first time only waiting nine minutes before removing content. User as repeatedly been involved in edit wars, has complete disregard for the concept of consensus, has issued personal attacks, been curt/rude and dismissive of/condescending towards other opinions, and has been blocked repeatedly:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	User may be sockpuppeting as ]. User is part of ] and anon is in ].
	—] (]) 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
	:If I may have input, I am located 'near' Middletown NJ, but I am NOT that user. Can't you identify his IP address? (I am assuming I am that user that you pointed out).] (]) 14:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
	::I am saying this in order for you to find evidence that I am not that user. Metals logic is simply because the reported user and I agree on an issue. When has that become a means to suspect everyone of fraud or whatever? The actions that the reported user has taken is evidence enough to take action against him/her. I am by no means defending their actions; rather just questioning the motive to now suspect me of having multiple accounts to edit the article. Besides me not having an account, I can't see anyway to prove this then to check the reported users ip address and report that process here so I and others can see how you recieved it.] (]) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Inayatullah_Khan_Mashriqi}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|68.174.108.113}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Also warring at ], where the AfD tag has been pulled down twice. - ] (]) 08:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
	*I am tending to the opinion that the IP may be connected in some way to Nasim Yousaf, who is the focus of their concerns at ]. - ] (]) 08:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
	**Blocked 24 hours by ] - ] (]) 08:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}}. AGF on the connection suspicion unless you have concrete evidence. Be careful of outing issues. Do not reveal information here, even if you (and I) believe it is public.] ] 09:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Article semi-protected) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|OtiliaC}}; {{userlinks\|145.116.225.193}}
	:'''Note''': This user owned the IP

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert: (edit summary contains what comes close to ]).

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

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

	*{{AN3\|p}} And warning issued with regard to the legal threat. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 11:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|C-Murder}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jamesp815}}

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

	Previous version reverted to: {{diff\|C-Murder\|473534994\|473534291\|his initial edit}}

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: {{diff\|C-Murder\|473539313\|473536760\|diff}}
	* 2nd revert: {{diff\|C-Murder\|473540169\|473539460\|diff}}
	* 3rd revert: {{diff\|C-Murder\|473540813\|473540473\|diff}}
	* 4th revert: {{diff\|C-Murder\|prev\|473613878\|diff}}

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff\|User talk:Jamesp815\|473558438\|473539478\|diff}}

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

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

	*{{AN3\|s}} <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 14:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Yopie}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=473695850 (28 January) ''1 revert.''
	* 2nd revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=473696936 (28 January) ''1 revert.''
	* 3rd revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=473698361 (28 January) ''3 reverts.''
	* 4th revert:

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]

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

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

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

	What makes this case worse than ordinary 3RR cases, is that this is a BLP article. The rules state explicitly that challenged (poorly sourced, biassed, context-lacking, etc.) content shall be ‘immediately removed’.

	— <span style="background-color:yellow;color:blue;">]</span> 18:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	* {{AN3\|pe}} I'm not sure HOW MANY TIMES I have to point you in the direction of ], but your hands are not clean in this edit-war either. I have full protected the page for 2 weeks. Follow the processes and advice you have been provided (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 19:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|False titles of nobility}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Yopie}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=False_titles_of_nobility&oldid=473698067 (28 January)
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yopie&oldid=471872070

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

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

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

	*{{AN3\|nv}} - that said, the editor is EW on a bunch of pages (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	==] reported by ] (]) (Result: blocked, 31 hours)==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)}}

	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ATWA WOLF}}

	'''Time reported:''' 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

	# <small>(edit summary: "There are a few things regarding Charles Manson's involvment in the Tate/Labianca murders which can be deemed as debatable and I felt it necessary to reflect an alternate point of view.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "I made necessary edits to reflect a more factual view of the Manson case.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Background */ I made necessary edits to reflect a more factual view of the Manson case.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "This page was in need of necessary changes!")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "I made necessary edits to this page to reflect facts not mentioned previously.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "I made necessary changes to reflect facts not mentioned here previously.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Necessary edits were made to reflect facts not previously mentioned.")</small>


	* Diff of warning:

	—] (]) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

	{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}}, especially since the user went on to add the controversial text again, this time flagging it as a minor edit. That showed enough intent to me that a block was clearly warranted. —''']''' (]) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:54, 8 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: