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 20:49, 2 March 2014 view sourceMatt Lewis (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,196 editsm →User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Snowded (Result: ): typo← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:23, 20 January 2025 view source Daniel Case (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,654 edits →User:Xpander1 reported by User:MimirIsSmart (Result: Blocked 72 hours): WP:NO THANKS, alsoTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
			<!--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 = ~~237~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|94.187.8.87}}
			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mount Damavand}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Farhoudk}}
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

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

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine ] concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ] (]) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			:{{AN3\|p\|three days}} by {{u\|Randykitty}} ] (]) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			::{{ping\|Daniel Case}} The editor has with no participation in the Talk page discussion using a ]. Now will you please fulfill my request that they be blocked instead of just temporarily preventing all editors from editing the article? ] (]) 14:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I wasn't the one who protected it, as noted. But I'll look into it. ] (]) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::They shan't trouble you again. At least not on that article. ] (]) 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
	<!-- 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 several subsequent edits

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Christianity in Kosovo}}, {{pagelinks\|Astius}}, {{pagelinks\|John Koukouzelis}}, {{pagelinks\|Angelina of Serbia}} <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|187.36.171.230}}
	I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted ''after'' a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. ] (])

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' Christianity in Kosovo: , Astius: , John Koukouzelis:
	==List of ''Wagon Train'' episodes (Result: Warned)==
	Recently I created the ] page. Afterwards I placed a peer review request on the talk page. One editor, ] added a guest star column to season one only. I do not think the article should have this. I prefer to have the list similar to such Featured lists as '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. Eclecticology sent the following message too me:
	:I disagree with your POV that key actors should not be included in episode lists. What has been done in the other articles that you cite is irrelevant to what happens on the Wagon Train. Adding this information is clearly useful since people watching these episodes will certainly be curious about where they have seen a particular actor before. Many of the TV productions from the time period of Wagon Train employed actors that were well known for other roles. Indeed, only one of those that I added had a red link. As for the role of IMDb, your opinion that it is unreliable does not translate broadly into making its information unusable in all circumstances. Some kinds of information on that site, particularly lists of credited cast taken from the presentations themselves, are generally reliable. I expect that you will stop making these "undue" changes to my edits. You do not own the article.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	No, I do not own the article; neither does Eclecticology. ''Wagon Train'' did indeed have high-profile guest stars but we are talking about a series that ran for eight seasons and aired a total of 285 episodes. I feel that adding this extra column will add too much to an article that is already quite long. Also I feel that guest stars should be added to future articles that would be devoted to one season each (i.e. ], ], etc.). However, each time I undue Eclecticology's changes he (or she) changes it back and adamantly states that his (or her) changes are right and rather brusquely berates me for being rude.
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]
			# </nowiki>]

	I think a third party needs to step in at this point. Can anyone help? ] (]) 22:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

	One can always have someone point out just what is and just what is not WP policy but let us look at the fundamental issue.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' -
	::Let us look at the fundamental justification of the reason for exclusion statement about an already existing article being too long. There has been a practice with WP that some articles that are perceived as too long should be broken into sections that better convey information for a particular point or effect. This is most evident with entertainment industry articles. There have been works of literature, songs, etc. that have been adapted into theatricals, then subsequently adapted into plays or movies. Do they all stay within the same article in WP? Of course not. Is information in an article about a particular entertainment production relegated to inclusion in WP within that originating article? Of, course not. Articles grow, split and divide into additional articles that they themselves grow, split and divide. There is a book from which an adaptation is made of a play or movie. If there is so much information about those subjects then it most probably gets divvied into that article which most appropriately should concern that aspect. Some entertainment industry articles are series because that is for what the information of that subject calls. A background actor certainly would be expected to be the subject of an entire article if their work was not sufficient for that purpose. Leave what information you have to a sentence in an article of that production. A noted actor certainly should have their life and career the subject of another article rather than leaving it to the production article. But if you never include information in an article merely because it is perceived as too long, then just where is it that the information will be included so that others are aware that maybe additional work needs to be done with that information? Some subjects in the entertainment industry field have an article on a series, articles on actors and crew, articles on particular projects that emerge through the creative process of a series. Is it a good idea to be put forth that information should be excluded because there is just too much? You say that you are not the owner of the article but do you recognize that by advocating the exclusion of information from the article very well controls what makes it into the article and WP? I am not saying that you are doing this surreptitiously but that is what is happening. WP does not encourage primary research yet it seems that a significant amount of information that we know about the films of the silent era come from those sources compiled by the entertainment industry in order for information to be known about their productions. Where else would besides primary records would this information be known? Only a fraction of that films were produced during the silent era exists and what published information from those sources deemed credible by WP is significantly smaller than what is available for the sound era. '''Wagon Train''' is a much different animal than the series' cited as an example of article content/style. I would venture to say that 99.99% of those people involved in the production of the Wagon Train are dead. The likelihood of publications by and about these people are very fleeting if people are not made aware of just who they are and what they have done.

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' -, but
	Well, I guess there is always the possibility of developing the article on the Wagon Train totally devoid of any mention of there being a totally different article about the guest actors on the Wagon Train if Eclecticology decides to do so if left out in the cold? But is that treatment beneficial to WP? No one is compelling you to start the compilation of the actors on the Wagon Train whether the actor had lines or not. In fact, the Wagon Train would not be the Wagon Train without it's actors. And for that particular time period in the television industry who was a lead actor or a guest actor, or who was not selected as a lead actor or despite being a popular actor never guest acted on the series very well may show a subtlety about just what behind-the-scenes or personal influences there may or may not have been in that production. Considering the role that the entertainment industry has had on society, many people do not recognize just how nuanced their lives have been shaped. How many people when five years old recognized that the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon was their level of participation in the Cold War? Personally, it was all lost on me every time we as kids were subjected to Borsch for dinner but at least it was countered by those many times when my friend Gary in elementary school would hand over his Baklava as if it were a peanut butter and jelly sandwich--Oh my mom makes it all the time.] (]) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	If your concern is more over how the message was worded then give me a shout and I'll direct you to some of the edit summaries that I have seen that are absolutely horrendous and inappropriate in a community that is voluntary. A quick look at the tables, just for the first season, would certainly show that if any where it would be there that those guest actors should be included. Linda Darnell, McDonald Carey, Dan Blocker etc. these are people on their own are remarkable people within the entertainment industry. Ask any person over the age of 50 who watched soap operas just who is MacDonald Carey and I would drop dead if they did not say that he was the head of the Horton Clan and considered such an icon of that industry that they still use his voice to introduce the show. His character children, character grandchildren and his character great-grandchildren have come and gone and his voice still lives on! If you are upset that the guy added the column only to the first year episode table, what does it take but a few minutes of cut and paste to finish it off. If there is a wiki policy to discourage guest star columns then maybe that policy should be reconsidered so that for those older shows (i.e. pre-1965ish) might have a different significance warranting a policy other than that of other television episodic guest acting appearances and thus dictate a different approach be considered. Hey, buddy. Cut your losses.A1Houseboy 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*{{AN3\|w}}. {{U\|Jimknut}} and {{U\|Eclecticology}}, you both reverted three times, although the war is somewhat stale now. You are both '''warned''' that further disruption of the article may result in a block. Jimknut, next time read and follow the instructions on this page on how to file a report here.--] (]) 02:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

			It seems like the user indeed adds suitable content for content that relates to Serbia. Therefore, a topic ban for Kosovo and Albania would be convenient. I don't know if that's possible here, though. ] (]) 23:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|FRG}} <br />
			*{{AN3\|b}} – 31 hours. ] (]) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Gandon64}}

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of religious slurs}}
	Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597112965

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xuangzadoo}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597119997&oldid=597112965
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597141351&oldid=597124001
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597161856&oldid=597143181
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=FRG&diff=597301560&oldid=597268430

			'''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 -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gandon64&oldid=597304823 section "FRG again".
	(The ] was since edited, replacing my addition with a warning about me removing others' changes.)

			'''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 -->
			# {{diff2\|1270068423\|19:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (rv, none of that contradicts my edits. There are no sources which call "pajeet" a religious slur directed at Hindus. It's only a religious slur for sikhs. There are no sources which call Chuhras Christians or Hindus, they are muslims. There are no sources which mention "cow piss drinker" originating in the US, it's from South Asia. None of my edits contradict what the talk page says.)"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ] (the only section). Edit summaries have clearly explained reason and quoted detail from ].
			# {{diff2\|1270041541\|16:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (The articles specifically mention "pajeet" as a religious slur directed at sikhs and/or as a racial slur directed at other south asians. There is no mention of "pajeet" being directed as a religious slur at Hindus.)"
			# {{diff2\|1270039369\|16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Hindus */ not a religious slur targeted at Hindus, removed"
			# "The two sources added for "Pajeet" specifically mention that it's directed at Sikhs or at south asians racially, not at Hindus religiously, removed. "Sanghi" does not have a separate mention for Kashmir in any of its sources, removed. Added disambiguating link to Bengali Hindus. Corrected origin of "cow-piss drinker" to the correct country of origin as mentioned in the source. Added further information for "Dothead"."
			# "Undid revision 1269326532 by Sumanuil"
			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270041824\|16:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{diff2\|1270040704\|16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* 'Anti-Christian slurs' */ cmt"
			# {{diff2\|1270045411\|17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Kanglu */ add"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	The substance of this issue is very simple: Gandon64 keeps adding the line below to the FRG article; the initialism "FRG" is not used in any article. This line has been inserted several times in the past, and others have deleted it, sometimes saying that they consider it spam.
	* FRG™ - Free Radical Gasification, a multi-patented ] to ] conversion process developed by Responsible Energy Inc.
	*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}}.--] (]) 02:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

			All these reverts yet not a single response at the talkpage. - ] (]) 01:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: stale) ==

			:I am replying here as I'm not sure what you want from me.
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Samsung Galaxy S5}}
			:Every edit I made is fairly accurate and doesn't contradict or vandalize any of wikipedia's rules.
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|GadgetsGuy}} {{userlinks\|GalaxyOptimus}}
			:] (]) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - ] (]) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: More reverts , can someone do something? - ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Battle of Jamrud}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|597322071\|03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|597321884\|03:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "logo fix, image removal due to questionable license"

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Noorullah21}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|597322766\|03:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Using multiple accounts on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|597322900\|03:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			# {{diff2\|1270170387\|07:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270112351 by ] (]): No it hasn't, they haven't even given their conclusion, and you again edited the page to revert it.."
			# {{diff2\|1270112351\|00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270108346 by ] (]): No he doesn't, please take this to the talk page now to be more clear."
			# {{diff2\|1270108346\|23:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270099439 by Noorullah21: "where they too were saved by the arrival of substantial reinforcements.
			Akbar Khan broke off the engagement and returned to Jalalabad, leaving
			the Sikhs in control of Jamrud, but when he returned to Kabul he claimed
			the victory and was given a hero’s welcome. For decades after, this pyrrhic
			victory was celebrated annually in the Afghan capital.39" -Lee, (calls it a phyrric Afghan victory), and Hussain isn't on google scholars."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Only two reverts are listed, as the third is done under the username {{user\|GalaxyOptimus}} (which he had, according to his talk page, changed from for violating the username policy). He constantly removes the image from the article, arguing that we can't use it under fair use because the source listed allegedly did not have rights to the image.
			# {{diff2\|1270110872\|23:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1270113286\|00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1270205537\|12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	He is also randomly tagging and removing other images from a Samsung Belgium Flickr profile which he thinks is flickrwashing based off a undisclosed "review", and literally removed an obviously user-created image for another Samsung article (as in, I don't think Samsung tablets ship with ] by default) and requested OTRS. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 04:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269985195\|10:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ new section"
	:Here are some of Samsung Belgium's deleted images , , and . So basically its Vipersnake that is causing an edit war. Plus removal of the cyanogen mod on the screen must be done as this should have a seperate license just as the touchwiz and stock ui does. Plus i am not using multiple accounts as I have renamed my account, there seems to be a problem though with integration into the new one. ] (]) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270115828\|00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
	::CyanogenMod ''is'' stock Android, and its open source. But still, in the case of the S5 page, that's a ''fair use image'' either way. It does not matter whether the source listed had "authorization". <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 04:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270117437\|00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
	:::But according to OTRS rules, a user must prove that the image if licensed to himself must be proven by submitting the requirements. Plus what is your grudge against OTRS ticketing? If the image is his in the first place and the OTRS reviewer has proven it, then it would be restored. Like what I have said, i just nominated it and not deleted it as i am not an admin so the admin that deleted it may have deemed my observation right, Right? ] (]) 04:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270123153\|01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
	:::::But the problem is that clearly its not a legitimate free-use. Basically your are just arguing that it is of free use just because it was unnoticed for a long time. There have been uploads before that has been licensed the same way as these images originally from samsung are and they are alll deleted as they are not allowed under the fair use license. It is even stated that ''"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"'' but there could be one in which a user could capture for himself the device (screen-off) and license it for free use or grab an author captured image on a article regarding the wiki article as long as it is licensed for free use by the original uploader on the source page. So to solve such, an review could deem it proper or not. ] (]) 05:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270124950\|01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
	::::::This phone '''isn't even out yet''' and has only been presented at an event open to accredited press. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 05:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270128846\|01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
	*Speedy deletion is properly contested. Open a discussion at ] to properly vet the deletion question—and quit editing warring with the back and forth reverts.—] (]) 05:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270130305\|02:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270131478\|02:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270133699\|02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Aftermath section */ Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:@John I am instead will be putting the s5 image on the <span class="plainlinks"></span>.] (])
	::I understand. For what it is worth I do not believe the image qualifies under fair use because a free image can easily be obtained. Nevertheless, there is nothing here that so clearly resembles vandalism to allow for an exemption of 3RR. Therefor, it is incumbent on both editors to resolve this matter through alternative means of dispute resolution. The best recourse will prevail in the end.—] (]) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
	*I've added a link to the discussion GadgetsGuy mentioned above. It shows that both users are proceeding in good faith to resolve this matter as colleagues; in the manner that best serves Misplaced Pages interests. The mini edit war was not a deliberate act of disruption by either user, the disruption was of no consequence and minimal in duration, and they were both amenable to wp:dr suggestions as soon as they were offered. In this light, I believe this thread can be closed without action. I hope a neutral administrator will demonstrate concurrence by closing this matter as resolved.—] (]) 16:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|s}} / considered warned. --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 02:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

			This is not the first time they are edit warring and breaking 3RR, they were previously warned by an admin . There seems to be a habit of them continuously misinterpreting the sources and pushing certain PoVs. They have opted for 3O by themselves but disagreed with the opinion given. ] 12:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==

			:Im not that involved(haven’t reverted anybody, just made a comment on the talk page). As a word of advice because so many people seem to forget this fact, when your adding disputed content, ONUS is on you to attain consensus. Which hasn’t happened here.
	* Page: {{pagelinks\|Breadsall Priory}}
			:“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”
	* User reported: {{userlinks\|Rushton2010}}



			:It seems that you yourself were also edit warring, except your the one who’s adding disputed content so per ONUS, you were never supposed to revert him to begin with. You need to wait until talk page discussions conclude and gain consensus. ] (]) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	I made some minor changes on the 15th October 2013‎ to the ] article, which were reverted by Rushton2010 on the 16th October 2013‎, on the grounds that my changes had "seriously distorted the information to the point of making it incorrect."
			::A. The instance you pointed out was an administrator warning me for one revert on the History of India page. (Talking to Indo-Greek, the person who reported and I had a dispute with here..)
			::B. When the individual hasn't concluded their ], you immediately reverted the page again saying they did. There's still a very open discussion with the user... (They've even edited the page most recently!.. I'd also like to remind you ] is non binding even when the opinion is given, meaning whether they say either or is in the right.. the dispute can still continue until a ] can be made. The burden of proof is on you for ] (you also kept readding a non ] source.. (Farrukh Hussain). I pointed out ] as a solution, and you keep reverting the page far before they've given their opinion. Lee... (this is now bringing the argument from the talk page here..) calls it a phyrric victory. ] (]) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I also told said where per ], it's per them to seek Consensus. ] (]) 16:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I reverted my edit as of now per the edit summary. (the last edit prior to that is the person working on our ]. ] (]) 16:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::This seems like ], but anyways. The admin had warned you for the same edit warring issue, not 1RR. You had asked for 3O which an editor eventually gave one quoting: {{tq\|I found a huge contradiction in your quote. You said "Nothing here calls the battle a Sikh victory," but the quote literally says "The Sikhs had beaten the Afghans"}} which was later discarded by you which is fine, but if other editors accusing you for overlooking the source and found you contradicting yourself then you should have been more cautious rather than outrightly reverting my changes. ] 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Have you not read the rest of the discussion..? the ] is being discussed.
			::::You've completely ignored this.
			::::
			::::
			::::
			::::
			::::Scroll down! (on the talk page). ] (]) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I also didn't violate the 3 revert rule. I didn't revert 4 times, I reverted 3 times. Although of course, this seems to be more inclined toward edit warring, which both of us did.
			:::::@] has just jumped into the discussion (and they seem to be more in favor of my argument) -- per their most recent talk page msg on the battle of jamrud, which shows a growing consensus on my side? .. Nonetheless, I still find this report baseless. ] (]) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::'''Both of us did''' No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through ], don't confuse it with ]. I also think that Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to? The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of ]. ] 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::What?
			:::::::"No, I barely reverted your changes two times. You need to go through WP:3RR" -- Yes, I'm talking about myself.. I reverted 3 times, to break the 3rr rule, you have to revert more than three times (i.e 4 times) "An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a single page" -- I also self reverted per the former.
			:::::::"Someguywhosbored didn't jump here randomly and what consensus you're referring to?" -- He responded on the talk page (of the page), he responded here, and he also re-reverted the page.
			:::::::'''"The report is not baseless besides it shows some sign of WP:MEAT."''' - Are you insinuating @] is a Meatpuppet? Because you've drawn effectively numerous flanks into the air on what this report is really about.
			:::::::A. In your edit summary you said the Third opinion was concluded.. (it wasn't.)
			:::::::B. You report here for 3rr (when 3rr wasn't violated, and I'm assuming this is more inclined toward edit war..?)
			:::::::C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?
			:::::::I'm sorry but there's no way this discussion is remaining civil anymore. Did you even read the Meatpuppet page? '''"The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Misplaced Pages:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."'''
			:::::::Flinging around accusations of Meatpuppetry clearly breaches ]. ] (]) 20:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::You also did revert it three times.. Shown here:
			:::::::: (First time)
			:::::::: (Second time)
			:::::::: (Third Time) ] (]) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::You are again falsely accusing me of breaking 3RR. You do realise that the first revert was more than 24 hours prior than the other two? I don't have much to say here it's quite self explanatory, while this is not the same case with you, where 3RR has been violated in the span of 24 hours. ] 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::I'm not accusing you of breaking 3RR, I'm saying you reverted three times. To break 3RR it has to be four reverts. (you have to revert more than three times). Your reverts were also in a 24 hour period. (Or just shy of it?)
			::::::::::I didn't revert four times to break 3RR. Where are the diffs of me reverting you four times? ] (]) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent\|10}}{{AN3\|noex}} As noted in the ''loooong'' discussion above, which again proves that using the talk page is a much preferable alternative to taking it over here. Also, this is getting a bit stale. ] (]) 12:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 2 weeks) ==
	He nowhere pointed out what information was seriously distorted, and has used the same excuse to revert each and every one of the changes I have made, no less that 10 times now. Indeed as day follows night you can be sure that if I make a change he will revert it.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|StopAntisemitism}} <br />
	I told myself that if Rushton2010 reverted my changes more than 10 times I would (reluctantly) draw the attention of this noticeboard to his activities. My impression is that he has "ownership issues", and on those grounds reverts each and every change by me. At no point did he feel the need to correct any mistakes (if indeed there are any mistakes) he just reverts the whole text, each and every time I have made any changes, and this has gone on now for a period of several months.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2600:1017:B8C6:1DB9:E0AB:D57:1BC1:97E4}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	In summary Rushodon2010 reverted my changes on the 26th February 2014, the 24th February 2014‎, the 12th February 2014‎, the 8th February 2014, the 5th February 2014, the 4th February 2014, the 3rd February 2014, the 29th January 2014, the 5th January 2014, and the 16th October 2013.
			#
			#
			#
			#

	This not only violates the three reverts rule, it seems contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


	The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
	<br>I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here, but as the page is one of little interest probably only local interest given it averages only 10-20 hits a day; of which some/most will be us anyway and the user involved as shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism and they have shown no signs of wanting to discuss -having on 10 occasions now reverted- rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization.
	<br>The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu.
	<br>Some are more issues of[REDACTED] procedure - for example the removal of 8 categories:
	*Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
	*Monasteries in Derbyshire
	*History of Derbyshire
	*Marriott International
	*Augustinian monasteries in England
	*13th-century establishments in England
	*Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
	*1536 disestablishments in England
	-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries. There is also the repeated removal of "Citation Needed" tags, and the "Ref Improve" Hatnote - all without the issues they highlighted having being rectified.
	<br>Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice -ditto why I thought he was removing the tags before they were rectified)</small>. It's Breadsall Priory.... Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both.
	<br>Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved.
	<br>--] (]) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	"The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu."
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} ] (]) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
	Give a single example in the current text where that is true. If you can find a single example change it. You know full well that you have simply engaged in wholesale reversion. You know that you are being disingenuous. I am happy to make the article as accurate as possible.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Next Danish general election }} <br />
	"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here"
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Thomediter}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Again you are being disingenuous. The reason why you did not come here is because you know that you have engaged in wholesale reversion, each and every time, for many months. Not something to be proud of, and not something to which you wanted to draw any attention.
			#
			#
			#
			#

			Editor was and that one more revert would result in them being reported for breaching 3RR. They made the fourth revert immediately after responding to the warning.
	"the user involved has shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism"

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	Again, you know that to be completely untrue, as anybody who looks at the article can see for themselves. If there was a specific issue you should have addressed it, but you didn't, you just engaged in wholesale reversion. Again you are being very disingenuous.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	"rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization."
			*], I am going to revert your last (fourth) revert; you are indeed edit warring and you're not giving any reasons for your edits, never mind for your ongoing reverts. If you revert one more time you will be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Seek the talk page. ] (]) 17:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|d}} per above and reported editor's inactivity. ] (]) 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==
	Ah a little bit of truth mixed in with the lies about "vandalism".

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Conor Benn}} <br />
	"for example the removal of 8 categories"
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GiggaHigga127}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' – only welterweight in the infobox
	*Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
	*Monasteries in Derbyshire
	*History of Derbyshire
	*Marriott International
	*Augustinian monasteries in England
	*13th-century establishments in England
	*Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
	*1536 disestablishments in England
	-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries."

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	I did not remove those categories. Why would I remove those categories? It makes no sense. If they were removed it was obviously accidental, and easily remedied by the editor. He simply demonstrates my point for me.
			# – re-adding light middleweight and middleweight
			# – same
			# – same
			# – same
			# – same, now with PA

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	UPDATE I see that the last version did accidentally omit the last list, but that does not apply to any of the other versions which were changed back by Rushton 2010, which he knows full well, so (yet again) Rushton2010 is being "economical" with the truth.

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	"Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead, something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice"

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	Again more deceit. I changed it to miles because that is how it is understood locally. I added Long Eaton because that is a much better known local centre. Long Eaton is much larger than Breadsall. He must surely know that, and so he should be careful about throwing the word "bizarre" around.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	"Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both."
			User:GiggaHigga127 insists on adding the ] and ] divisions to Conor Benn's infobox. Our style guide at WikiProject Boxing, ], says to only include weight classes in which a boxer has ''notably'' competed, that being usually for regional/minor/world titles. In Benn's case, that division was ] for almost the entirety of his career, and he did indeed hold a regional title in that division. In 2023 he was given a lengthy ban from the sport, from which he recently returned in a pair of throwaway fights within the light middleweight limit, against non-notable opposition and with no titles at stake. Per the style guide, those throwaway fights are not important enough to warrant the inclusion of light middleweight in the infobox, at least until he begins competing there regularly.

			As far as middleweight goes, Benn has ''never competed anywhere close to that weight class''. He has a fight 'scheduled' to take place at middleweight, but until the bell rings to officially commence proceedings, ] and ] should apply, and again it should not be listed in the infobox until then. This same fight was 'scheduled' in 2023, only to be cancelled after Benn failed a drug test—something which happens in boxing all the time. In fact, at the Project we had ] regarding upcoming fights in record tables, so the same should apply in this instance. ] would also be a cop-out, because the whole point of MOS:BOXING was to ensure consistency across boxing articles. ] (]) 18:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	Again a little bit of truth, yes it is better with both, that is the point. No mention of the kilometers issue I see. I wonder why?
			:It continues: , this time with me being called a "melt". I can't imagine what that is, but all the better if it's an insult for obvious reasons. Also, no responses at user talk page. ] (]) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. ] (]) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Based on , it could be ] as well. ] (]) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --] (]) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. ] (]) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	"Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more."

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Probability and statistics}}
	At last the nub of the issue. All that other stuff (to be brutally frank) he is just making up. This is the only substantive point. He disliked that I changed this sentence. Let us examine the issue. He calls it a gross error. Let us put aside the hyperbole and look at the difference between the formulations. He wants to say that "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon" which is a clumsy sentence. I replaced it with a sentence which reads better. Why the protest? The complete reversions? The refusal to modify that sentence? Because he thought it was important that although Augustinian friars could not own land (which was why it was incorrect to identify them as such) he thought it was important to draw attention to the irrelevant fact that this did not apply to any land upon which the monastery was sited. Now anybody can see that this is irrelevant to the point being made (i.e. which sort of friars were they) but he was not going to discuss the issue, he was a going to revert every single change I ever made, no matter how minor, simply because I changed this sentence in a way that took out this irrelevant point, which he found so important.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Logoshimpo}}
	"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved."

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Your behaviour has been clear all along. It could not have been more clear. You took possession of the article and reverted each and every change (no matter how trivial!) over a period of many months. You have now compounded this behaviour by lying about your actions. Lying about my actions, and all over a single sentence which you could easily have changed back if it mattered to you so much. It is all there for people too see. That is the beauty of Misplaced Pages. If anybody reads the article as it is now in comparison with the original it is clear that the charges of "vandalism" are just lies. All it amounts to is a difference of opinion about whether or not it is important to mention that the monastery owned the land "it stood on". The rest is just Rushton2010 attempting to justify his malice and arrogance.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] (]) 08:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

			Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , .
	P.S. I see that Rushton2010 has just reverted it once more, even while it is being discussed here! That makes a total of 11 reversions! ] (]) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	: You are aware that if you make an ], right? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
			#

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Thanks. ] (]) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1270081668\|20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* WP:SELFREF */ Reply"
	*'''Result:''' No action. This is a long-running dispute but nobody broke 3RR. Both parties are advised to use the talk page. Use ] if agreement can't be reached. ] (]) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
			The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . ] (]) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 36 hours, reporter blocked 24, and page protected for a week) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Paul T T Easter}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Housefullofcards}}

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

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

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1270462611\|17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754 vandalized by Crasias"
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270457231\|diff=1270459938\|label=Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			## {{diff2\|1270459303\|17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1270459938\|17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1270456533\|16:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270368949\|diff=1270375910\|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1270375677\|06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
			## {{diff2\|1270375910\|06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270037609\|diff=1270355298\|label=Consecutive edits made from 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1270354944\|04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1270355115\|04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1270355298\|04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Variations */"

			'''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\|1270460344\|17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	I think that this is likely the same IP editor (]) that had been trying to revert to an unsourced version of the article previously, as ] created an account and began making minor edits about the same time the article was given semi-protection. That IP user was given a warning as well and there is currently an ] underway to see if all of the accounts are related. Here are the IP's edits: , , and here's where I warned the user: . The user has been warned previous to my post on his talk page by ]. While the page reversions have differed slightly, it is still the same unsourced information that they are trying to add. There is an ] for the page where I've also asked that people stop reverting to re-add the information and given various reasons for that. ]] 07:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	:{{AN3\|b}} – Five days for edit warring. The user was previously blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing on 21 February. The ] article was on 24 February. ] (]) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 h) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Pratibha Patil}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Kakadesi}}

			Frequently removing and replacing sourced content that identifies Nachos as "Tex-Mex" rather than "Mexican" ] (]) 17:32, 19 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. -->
			:{{AN3\|bb}} Rauzoi for 36 hours and Crasias for 24 (one less revert over the limit). ] does not cover this. Furthermore ...
			:{{AN3\|p}} Extended-confirmed for a week since, as both editors are autoconfirmed only, they will not be able to resume hostilities once the blocks expire. The talk page hasn't been used in months. ] (]) 23:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sex differences in intelligence}} <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BoneCrushingDog}}
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

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

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*Please note that this is a BLP of the recently-retired President of India. The issue of dedicated controversy sections and the nature of what constitutes a controversy etc has been discussed before, eg: ], ], ], ] and ]. There are numerous other examples in the archives and the article was semi'd for a while due to some of these BLP violations. The contributor has been doing similar stuff at ] and, to be honest, seems to be nothing but aggressive wherever they go.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:The article , so the issue is not one of censorship but, as the prior discussions indicate, one of weight, recentism, relevance etc. - ] (]) 10:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

	::~~They~~'ve . - ] (]) 13:13, 28 ~~February~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Note that these edits fall squarely under ], and the last (6th) revert was done ''after'' they were . ] (]) 23:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)<br />
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 00:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|blocked\| 48 hours}}. Really a pretty short block considering they're edit warring on both ] and ] to introduce non-] compliant material, and considering this frivolous revenge templating. ] \| ] 13:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Blocked~~ ~~72h~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already semi-protected) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Götaland~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Exclusive economic zone}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|JesseRafe}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|177.84.58.25}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|597306620\|01:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 595754072 by ] (]): . (])"
	# {{diff2\|597329987\|05:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 597306620 by ] (]). (])"
	# {{diff2\|597551165\|18:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 597329987 by JesseRafe: Look at this user's history, he is using CN tags maliciously to push an agenda, look at the Talk Pages, he isn't even consistent in what his claim his, he is harming the integrity of these articles with his..."
	# {{diff2\|597554520\|18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by JesseRafe. (])"

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ ~~/ 3RR warning~~:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270539434\|diff=1270541014\|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|597554461\|18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
			## {{diff2\|1270540192\|01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Eu não sou essa pessoa que você está a citar eu comecei a alterar essa página essa e a minhas primeiras vezes , eu estou alteração está página porque eu gosto de ver a área da ZEE de cada país um abaixo do outro ."
			## {{diff2\|1270540659\|01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of each country in the world, please don't make changes"
			## {{diff2\|1270541014\|01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of each country in the world, please don't make changes"
			# {{diff2\|1270537566\|00:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Eu não vou mais fazer alteração se deixar o Rankings by area porque eu gosto de Rankings by area"
			# {{diff2\|1270536155\|00:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ZEE com alteração perfeita"
			# {{diff2\|1270532750\|00:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Alterei o tamanho da zona exclusiva econômica do brasil porque a ZEE aumentou em 2024"
			# {{diff2\|1270527449\|23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Antes essa página sofreu alteração incorreta, com eu fiz uma alteração mais correta ."

	;Diffs of ~~attempt~~ to ~~resolve~~ ~~dispute~~ ~~on article talk page~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1270537849\|00:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

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

	;<u>Comments:</u>

			We discover this week that random numbers were changed a while ago. We changed them back and sort of started a discussion ]
	Discussion underway at ], but editor seems unwilling to discuss, and has indicated that he will continue to blindly revert. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
	:Just to note, I already blocked the editor after he reverted yet again before seeing that he had been reported here. ''']]''' 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
	::Great minds think alike, I suppose. I'd consider Spark's block dispositive of the 3RR report given it's based on the edit warring, myself. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
	:::This user did not cross 3RR. But that is a meaningless line if it is a meaningless line. The other user, Serge is repeatedly adding tags in articles challenging that Geats is a valid English name, claiming it was coined in the 1980s. That is about as ] disruptive as claiming "French" is not a valid English term and was coined in the 1980s. Why should we be required to prove to people to in] to use google, that the term predates the 1980s, as if that would make it "invalid" even if it had? And how many times does the 1837 usage need to be pointed out before other editors will HEARTHAT? This block is a bit excessive for a common sense response to disruption.] /]/ 18:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I must say that I'm not to happy about being misrepresetned re: 1980s after having taken very clear action on that subject. --] (]) 22:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
	::::This is under discussion at the user's talk page. I admit in retrospect there was ''just'' over 24 hours between the first and fourth reverts, but that's besides the point as Spark issued a block for edit warring generally, and not a bright-line 3RR violation (though I have no doubt given JesseRafe's comments that he would have reverted a fifth time). —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} by Spinningspark. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==

			We are not sure what they are doing...... Think they're mistaken continental shelf for EEZ.<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 01:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kathleen Wynne}} <br />
			*{{AN3\|p}} (already semi-protected) ] (]) 06:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

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

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2A01:4B00:D10A:6700:C8CB:A681:5BFA:C14D}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Edit warring to add ] violating guilt by association to article. ] (]) 21:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} by Paul Erik. ]]<font color="#0645AD"></font> (]) 22:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
			# {{diff2\|1270551103\|02:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Enterprisers */"
			# {{diff2\|1270550937\|02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Royalty */"
			# {{diff2\|1270550061\|02:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Enterprisers */"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270548846\|diff=1270549881\|label=Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1270549319\|02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Royalty */"
			## {{diff2\|1270549881\|02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Politicians */"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Albania}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1270550935\|02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Edit Warring */ new section"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mingling2}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article 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. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

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

			and again , and
	<!-- 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\|ab}} (/64 blocked for 1 week by {{u\|Daniel Case}}) ] (]) 06:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 72 hours) ==
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tübingen School}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Xpander1}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Malbin210 below ] (]) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
	:I really don't have any religious motive. The section about religion is very overcrowded. I request user malbin210 to resolve the dispute on article's talk page but does not respond. What should I do?] (]) 13:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''This is a exactly copy pasted from Mingling2 user contributions history''' > https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Mingling2

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	#14:50, 22 February 2014 (diff \| hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Albania ‎ (And the reason behind this is that Moslem women don't pray at mosques and evangelical churches which have a single church for every ten believers.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
			# {{diff2\|1270585353\|07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Self-reverting as per ]"
	#15:59, 21 February 2014 (diff \| hist) . . (-2)‎ . . Albania ‎ (Islam is largest religion in Albania so its image needs to be placed first.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
			# {{diff2\|1270579742\|06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270517034 by ] (]): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
	#15:50, 21 February 2014 (diff \| hist) . . (+571)‎ . . Talk:Albania ‎ (Tag: Mobile edit)
			# {{diff2\|1270517034\|22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270516481 by ] (]): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
	#12:30, 2 January 2014 (diff \| hist) . . (+1,001)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
			# {{diff2\|1270516481\|22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	#11:53, 2 January 2014 (diff \| hist) . . (-2,438)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion: These estimates it cover just 79 out 83 fedral subjects. Not much informative.)
			# {{diff2\|1270515748\|22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 1270489731 by ] (]): Please add the new sources to ] Best."
	#16:18, 1 January 2014 (diff \| hist) . . (-437)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1270482917\|diff=1270489731\|label=Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	#12:50, 1 January 2014 (diff \| hist) . . (+682)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
			## {{diff2\|1270484281\|19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
	#12:43, 1 January 2014 (diff \| hist) . . (+849)‎ . . m Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
			## {{diff2\|1270489731\|19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Redirecting page the newly created page"
			# {{diff2\|1270482597\|19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored revision 974048061 by ] (]): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
			# {{diff2\|1270267829\|19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Then he removes an image from the national hero of Albania ... because he faught the muslim Ottomans ! And then he gives an excuse , that only himself can understand !
			# {{diff2\|1270589185\|07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ new section"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Albania&diff=596778004&oldid=596761300
			# {{diff2\|1270588908\|07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
			# {{diff2\|1270341854\|02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests}} "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from ] - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''And then he removes half of the section of the religions in Albania !!!! Why ? Because those minorities are christian !''' ( Albania is a multireligious country )

			Extremely aggressive edit warring. Xpander1 had expanded a redirect to a page with no issue but decided it would be better to just create a page, hence a discussion at ]. Editor decided to "redact contribution in protest", initially blanking then resorting to redirecting. ] would assist in reverting these changes with Xpander1 reacting negatively, violating 3RR to get it erased. Editor had created redirects such as ] and ], with ] being where he did a cut-and-paste move from original article. Has no intention to resolve dispute any time soon. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)



			:All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in the ], and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Misplaced Pages must distinguish between '''valid-article-creators''' and '''redirect-page-creators'''. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair. ] (]) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	Let me repeat that this user is lying . He is not an albanian . And he is a sock puppet account of multiple times banned religious fanatic from Pakistan , with no life , that has a certain fantasy with albania ! I am sorry but i have lost so many hours now trying to clean up his mess !!! Trying to restore content that he deletes !!! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on ] and on the . ] (]) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} by {{U\|DangerousPanda}}.--] (]) 15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

			The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at ]. Please see also ] and ]. ] (]) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
			:{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} , I am mystified—no, make it ''stunned''—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the ''page creation log'' isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the ''software'' does, that by design no one has control over. {{u\|Wetman}} is going to get credit for creating the ''page'', yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the ''article'' by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.<p>Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of ]. I strongly remind them ].<p>I also reject their argument that ] shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is ''inarguable'' that, especially given their statement that ], they did so in a manner calculated to cause ] and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to ]. ] (]) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			::'''Addendum''': I also commend ] to {{u\|Xpander1}}'s attention. ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Albania}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Malbin210}}

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|92.238.20.255}}
	Previous version reverted to:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1270686162\|19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff2\|1270685824\|19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Updated content"
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1270685483\|19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
			# {{diff2\|1270684934\|19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"
			# {{diff2\|1270683674\|19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Deleted content"

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Mingling2 above] (]) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments''': This IP is trying to censor information in that article --] (]) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</u>
	I did nothing more than reverting edits that user mingling2 was making for religious purposes . All his reverts as demonstrated by his contributs history is about religion , be that in Russia Albania Macedonia or wherever !!! All in all is not edit warring ! '''Why''' ? Because when you restore the original version of[REDACTED] , when that version is being vandalized by a person with a religious agenda claiming to be albanian as well ( which he is not , because i am from albania ) then is called protecting the article from vandalizers !!!
			*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ] (]) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==
	He removes established sourced VERY VALUABLE content ABOUT RELIGION and only , that has been there for months or years , meaning that there has been a general consensus , '''furthermore''' look the latest edit that he made ( you have presented it here already ) . In the section of religion he removed around 1 kb of content about religious minorities in Albania which are a very active part of Albania society such as per example the Protestant community . Guess what he removed all that sourced and accurate content !!! And let me stress out THAT I HAD NOT WRITTEN that content . '''Why does he do that''' ? Because i think is one of the multiple sock puppet accounts that this person operates for Religious muslim propaganda !!! Please do investigate if he is somehow connected with an already multiple times banned user from Pakistan that has a certain fantasy with Albania! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*{{AN3\|b\|one week}} by {{U\|DangerousPanda}}.--] (]) 15:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' ] <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Kelvintjy}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Spshu}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1227039793
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1229865081
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230019964
			# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1230184562

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&action=history

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 ''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan
	<!-- 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/Talk:Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States (warned on talk page that I was reporting, but no reply.)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy
	<https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States>

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

			Hello
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the ] page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the ] page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			*{{AN3\|s}} ] (]) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Tried, but this guy is not interested and is a repeat edit warrior. ~~~~ -->
	DiverScout add information with sources that don't contain anything (webpages nonexistant or now foreign language sites), so I reversed the addition for reason as unverifiable ( & ). After all when clicking the edit linked the notice "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." is at the top, which the source are not. I have only reverse him twice and he had add it twice too. So, if I am block, he should too. He gave me from his "warning" to posting here and another 2 minutes for an actually flagged message at my talk page that was to indicate that he was reporting me. In which time as was discussing his disregard for waiting for consensus in moving to rename the article. Also, note his attempt at improperly informing the responding administrator that he "Tried, but this guy is not interested and is a repeat edit warrior." When given the time frame given to respond was almost nil to respond, so no DiverScout did not try. Whether or not I am a "repeat edit warrior" is immaterial to the current issue. I have run into several contentious editors who would not show up to discuss the issue until reaching near the 3RR line. Any one can report me, just as frivolously as DiverScout has now. ] (]) 18:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}}. Locked for one week by {{U\|CambridgeBayWeather}}.--] (]) 14:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Template:Largest cities in Turkey}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Lord of Rivendell}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|597669504\|14:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)}} "It doesn't say anything about Bursa, just a pile of gecekondu style apartments without architects. The main square shows the Governorate (Valilik) of Bursa and the Atatürk statue in front of it."
	# {{diff2\|597716283\|20:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)}} "This picture shows the main square of Bursa, with the Governorate Building and the statue of Atatürk in front of it, and the hills of Mt. Uludağ in the background. (The Admin didn't revert it, YOU reverted it.) By the way, you are obviously an Islamist."
	# {{diff2\|597721829\|21:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)}} "POV = Atatürk?"
	# {{diff2\|597722733\|21:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)}} "The picture that you added shows slums, and is obviously stolen from an internet website, with very low pixel resolution and quality."
	# {{diff2\|597723143\|21:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)}} "There is also a lot of air pollution when the picture was taken. Looks like a dirty, ugly, backward city."
	# {{diff2\|597723558\|21:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Are your parents also cousins?"
	# {{diff2\|597737164\|23:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Vre ]..."

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# 18 August 2013, conflict with IP around the same Bursa picture.
	# 14 February 2014, conflict with Lord of Rivendell around the same Bursa picture of the present conflict. No reply at all.
	:<span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Warned several times, though not by me: <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 00:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	Template was protected at 14 Februari due to edit warring ( over pictures. A few hours after lifting of the protection Lord of Rivendell . <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 01:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	::Blocking him a third time for edit warring would be pointless. Continuous reverts may be annoying but more worrying is that he resorts to ] other users (not me in this case) when he loses an argument and is unwilling to let go of his battleground mentality that caused the previous blocks.--] (]) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	:::He's been blocked several times for editwarring in articles related to Turkey before. ] (]) 02:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Cramér's conjecture}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|89.79.201.171}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	<!-- 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 />
	The IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address and as ]. --] (]) 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I've blocked ] for one week for edit warring and self-promotion. I've semi-protected the article for one week against his IP addresses.--] (]) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	== ] and ] reported by ] ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tetsuya Yamato}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|1.10.217.3}}

	#
	#

	warning:

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Tetsuya Yamato}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|1.10.193.26}}

	#
	#

	warning:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	The IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address. --] (]) 05:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. {{U\|B20180}}, you are going about this all wrong on a number of fronts. First and foremost, you are just as guilty of edit warring as the other editor. Second, what he's doing is not ], and your report at ] was properly rejected. Third, taking this issue to the talk pages of multiple arbitrators demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how Misplaced Pages works. It doesn't help that your English is poor as others have some trouble understanding what you're trying to say. This is a ''content dispute''. Resolution of it belongs on the article talk page where you discuss the content and not the conduct of the editors (your vandalism label on the talk pagge is not a good way to approach this). If you can't resolve the dispute, then you'll have to use other forms of ]. The one thing you can''not'' do is edit-war.--] (]) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your explanation. I think I should use that talk page later in other way. (I still busy in this time) And thank you again. --] (]) 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mufaddal Saifuddin}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Summichum}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	<!-- 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 ~~~~ -->

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Interplay Entertainment}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Niemti}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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


	<!-- 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 -->


	<u>Comments:</u> User continues to use blanket reverts without even attempting to correct spelling errors, and continues to unorganize a game list and delete info, please look into this. Also instead of at least posting a comment as to why he thinks an undo is appropriate he puts things such as

	(cur \| prev) 14:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (besides the obvious lack of spelling Ex "which failed to return the large ammount of money invested in it.", the deleting the location, deleting public company info, unorganizing the games list, this is your official warning of the "3 Revert rule".) (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 11:41, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk \| contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 05:15, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (again, you "revision" does little to add to the page. Perhaps you should visit ALL of your other entries to see what else you have vandalized.) (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 05:12, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk \| contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . ('''Wikpedia:Vandalism; Troll Hard 2: Troll Harder''') (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 05:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (again, how is disorganizing the products area useful to this article other than vandalism?) (undo)
	(cur \| prev) 05:06, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk \| contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . ('''you're not trolling hard enough''') (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 05:05, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (I do not see how your organizing of the products area helps the article. Until you can explain how it helps it I will continue to delete your vandalism.) (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 05:03, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk \| contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . ('''troll harder''') (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 05:01, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 04:51, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk \| contribs)‎ m . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (learn the guidelines of Misplaced Pages) (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 04:48, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎ . . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎ . . (undo)

	(cur \| prev) 23:34, 27 February 2014‎ Niemti (talk \| contribs)‎ . . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎ . . (undo)
	<br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: 50.83.87.8 ~~~~ -->

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Denis MacShane}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz }}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , which was met with:

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	This user is very well aware of 3rr rules, and despite a polite note that they were removing sourced content while claiming it was unsourced, went back and repeated the same while attacking me. I've seen them in action before and can't say any of this surprises me, but no one should be attacked for pointing out errors when they are made, as long as they are done so civilly.

	Each post I have left on this users' page has been met with equal hostility and attacks so I ask for other eyes on this, and to post notice. The last time i posted about his edit-warring , he also just removed the notice stating, in part, " '''are hypocrites unwelcome here -- as they should be on all of Misplaced Pages'''". The edit in question was reverted by another editor indicating that the onus was, in fact, on this user to defend the addition which they never did.

	The content in question clearly has sources sited, this is one of several articles they are doing this on. This also seems to be a regular pattern of theirs.] (]) 16:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	The content at issue appears to be
	::''It has been reported that he is currently in a relationship with the economist .''
	Which appears at first glance to be a tidbit of gossip and not a statement of fact. There is a legitimate question as to whether gossip belongs in biographies of living persons, and I suggest the fact that an IP has re-added the material might be of interest here. One source is a single aside in a Telegraph article, and the other is a Daily Mail article which uses the term "boyfriend" and not the stronger "in a relationship" which shows the DM is more careful than the Telegraph at times. I suggest, moreover, that "]" in a BLP ought ''not'' be a protected addition. ] (]) 18:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|d}}. There's been no violation of ]. The material is poorly sourced and not even correct, using the word "currently" (a dreadful word) when the source is from 2012.--] (]) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	== ] and sock ] reported by ] (Result: Both blocked) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Veria}}
	;Users being reported: {{userlinks\|62.44.135.196}}

	and its sock {{userlinks\|87.63.80.142}}.

	Please see also ].

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|597834390\|17:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 597834201 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|597834166\|17:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 597833787 by ] (]) Other cities also have other langages for example Tetovo in Macedonia."
	# {{diff2\|597833712\|17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 597831244 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|597827823\|16:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 597827288 by ] (])"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|597842647\|18:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)}} "==ARBMAC Warning==
	# {{diff2\|597843362\|18:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|597843643\|18:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)}} "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering.
	# {{diff2\|597835066\|597834628\|18:40, 2 March 2014}} 3RR Warning by FPaS.

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


	;<u>Comments:</u>

	Coordinated edit-warring with sockpuppet {{IPvandal\|87.63.80.142}} across many ] Greek articles. Please see ]. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	;See also
	Common target articles. Please check article history.
	*{{la\|Edessa, Greece}}
	*{{la\|Veria}}
	*{{la\|White Tower of Thessaloniki}}
	*{{la\| Naousa, Imathia}}
	*{{la\|Kastoria}}
	:* '''Blocked''' for 60 hours. ] (]) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	::Thank you Black Kite. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 19:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wales}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Matt Lewis}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	<!-- 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: (Note the latest batch is a continuation of earlier edit warring)

	<!-- 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 ~~~~ -->

	Edit warring against three other editors, personal attacks on the talk page. Matt seems to be back to his old ways ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	:There is no "old ways" here: that's just something Snowded always says about me. This is a big one: policy has to come before 3RR here as the current wording commits a grave error in its misinterpretation of national identity. My clear 'OR'-correcting content has been removed from the article by a small group of people who want to break up the UK. 3RR makes less sense in this area, as it's just used to win arguments and stop change. Snowded has refused to give his opinion on the discussion page. As soon as a made a policy-correcting edit it was attacked, and it just went down hill from there. This was, however, settled last night with my compromising edit. Snowded today reverted it for no good reason other than just saying "talk" (which he personally hasn't done - he won't commit - so how can I?). It was settled, was all fine, and this is utterly needless now. It's entrenched nationalist politics at its worst imo. ] (]) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	::As far as I can see Matt you have been opposed by all other editors engaged, and trying the nationalist slur does not excuse the "I'm right so exempt from 3rr" stance you have taken ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	::::If you looked a bit more carefully you'd see that in the end the better editors involved accepted the compromise (decausa, martinevans etc) - You've just needlessly fanned the flames today, and give air to known trolls like 'British Watcher'. If you actually engaged in the discussion you would have spotted all this. For the first time ever, I even sent you an email to point out the mistake you are making. I pretty sure that I've never done that before to anyone. Why did you ignore it Snowded, it's so needless and painful it really is. The current content is so non-policy it has to go. My edit was 100% inoffensive. Whatever happens to me, the article will simply have to be free from incorrect interpretive bias. ] (]) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::A clear 3RR violation by ]. He may be able to avoid a block if he will agree not to edit the article or its talk page for seven days. ] (]) 20:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	::::Fine. But please be aware that at one point this article stated that "74% of people in Wales had no British identity". It was all interpretation of a column heading. Over 74% of us has! It doesn't make us any less Welsh, and like the census people we ragard British as Welsh and vice versa. This article insists the census was mutually exclusive in UK terms, and a test of Britishness. IT wasn't. What I found (a bit buried-away I admit) was beyond unacceptable for me, and I wasn't taken seriously from the very outset unfortunately. Everyone I've spoken to yesterday and today in Real Life Wales finds it utterly absurd (even on St David's day), and one woman said "this is why daughter says don't trust Misplaced Pages." It's so sad, and it does nothing for the project at all. But I'll ring around and alert and try and get some better sources from the census people (see if they'll 'prove the negative' in some way - they won't want this at all). I assume that is acceptable - they can only say no. I'll take what comes any way. Sorry but I thought this was over last night (in fact I'm certain it was) and today I didn't feel I had any choice but to say I feel policy beats 3RR in this regard. ] (]) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

	::::Reverts continued ] (]) 20:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I've seen the above comment since. It's just the final way of shutting me out Dai. It's pretty transparent imo. But as the person who put the above line into Misplaced Pages (on "74%") you've personally got what you want in the end, at least for a while. ] (]) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:23, 20 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)
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

You are still edit warring without posting at the talkpage. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

More reverts , can someone do something? - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Noorullah21 reported by User:HerakliosJulianus (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've completely ignored this.

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

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

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

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

What?

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

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

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

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

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

C. You then throw around Meatpuppet accusations?

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

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

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

(First time)

(Second time)

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

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

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

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

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. As noted in the loooong discussion above, which again proves that using the talk page is a much preferable alternative to taking it over here. Also, this is getting a bit stale. Daniel Case (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

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

Declined per above and reported editor's inactivity. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: – only welterweight in the infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

Predictably, now it's onto block evasion: . NOTHERE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on this, it could be meaty as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Neither nor. I stand by the revision, but that's where any commonality ends. --Dennis Definition (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course you stand by the revision. You show up less than 12 hours after Gigga gets blocked, and perform the exact same revert. Dodgy. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Logoshimpo reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Slow-motion edit-warring: original bold edit was , subsequent reversions are , , .

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Gentle warning on article talk-page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: The last revert follows talk-page discussion in which two users (including me) have rejected their arguments and no one has agreed with them. Here was their addition to the talk-page before their most recent revert: . JBL (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Rauzoi reported by User:Crasias (Result: Blocked 36 hours, reporter blocked 24, and page protected for a week)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754 vandalized by Crasias"
Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 17:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270457231 by Crasias (talk)"
2. 17:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
16:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
Consecutive edits made from 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "original version https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nachos&diff=prev&oldid=1187016754"
2. 06:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 04:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 04:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Variations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Frequently removing and replacing sourced content that identifies Nachos as "Tex-Mex" rather than "Mexican" Crasias (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Both editors blocked Rauzoi for 36 hours and Crasias for 24 (one less revert over the limit). 3RRNO does not cover this. Furthermore ...

Page protected Extended-confirmed for a week since, as both editors are autoconfirmed only, they will not be able to resume hostilities once the blocks expire. The talk page hasn't been used in months. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:BoneCrushingDog reported by User:Generalrelative (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: Note that these edits fall squarely under WP:ARBGS, and the last (6th) revert was done after they were formally notified. Generalrelative (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:177.84.58.25 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Page already semi-protected)

User being reported: 177.84.58.25 (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 01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 01:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Eu não sou essa pessoa que você está a citar eu comecei a alterar essa página essa e a minhas primeiras vezes , eu estou alteração está página porque eu gosto de ver a área da ZEE de cada país um abaixo do outro ."
2. 01:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of each country in the world, please don't make changes"
3. 01:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "I started changing this page today I'm just making changes to this page because I like to see the Zee area of each country in the world, please don't make changes"
00:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Eu não vou mais fazer alteração se deixar o Rankings by area porque eu gosto de Rankings by area"
00:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "ZEE com alteração perfeita"
00:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Alterei o tamanho da zona exclusiva econômica do brasil porque a ZEE aumentou em 2024"
23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Antes essa página sofreu alteração incorreta, com eu fiz uma alteração mais correta ."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

We discover this week that random numbers were changed a while ago. We changed them back and sort of started a discussion User talk:Maxeto0910#EEZ

Comments:

We are not sure what they are doing...... Think they're mistaken continental shelf for EEZ.Moxy🍁 01:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected (already semi-protected) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2A01:4B00:D10A:6700:C8CB:A681:5BFA:C14D reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Already blocked)

User being reported: 2A01:4B00:D10A:6700:C8CB:A681:5BFA:C14D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Enterprisers */"
02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Royalty */"
02:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Enterprisers */"
Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) to 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 02:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Royalty */"
2. 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Politicians */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

and again here, here and here

Already blocked (/64 blocked for 1 week by Daniel Case) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Xpander1 reported by User:MimirIsSmart (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

User being reported: Xpander1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 974048061 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Self-reverting as per Misplaced Pages:3RRNO"
06:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270517034 by Xpander1 (talk): Please see the redirect page for adding new edits"
22:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270516481 by Xpander1 (talk): Please avoid making an edit war, I asked you nicely"
22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270516027 by Wikishovel (talk)"
22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1270489731 by Xpander1 (talk): Please add the new sources to Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School Best."
Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) to 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270482917 by Wikishovel (talk) other editors simply continued my original work, which I respect"
2. 19:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Redirecting page the newly created page"
19:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 974048061 by Arms & Hearts (talk): Reverting my own edit to contest page creation attribution"
19:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1270267643 by Xpander1 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

07:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Page creator attribution */ Reply"
02:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC) on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests "/* Uncontroversial technical requests */ Decline, this one is more of a histmerge request which would also be declined from WP:NOATT - I'm happy to explain further on a talk page"

Comments:

Extremely aggressive edit warring. Xpander1 had expanded a redirect to a page with no issue but decided it would be better to just create a page, hence a discussion at Special:Diff/1270341854. Editor decided to "redact contribution in protest", initially blanking then resorting to redirecting. User:Wikishovel would assist in reverting these changes with Xpander1 reacting negatively, violating 3RR to get it erased. Editor had created redirects such as Protestant and Catholic Tübingen Schools and Tübingen school (Germany), with Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School being where he did a cut-and-paste move from original article. Has no intention to resolve dispute any time soon. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

All I did was self-reverting, the article had no significant history before my contribution. What you are describing as "copy-pasting", is me putting my own creation in a new page. As I have explained in many places, in the WP:Teahouse, and elsewhere. My rationale is very simple, Misplaced Pages must distinguish between valid-article-creators and redirect-page-creators. I currently count as the latter. Which don't think is fair. Xpander (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As for now, the page is currently being attributed to User:Wetman on xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Wetman and on the article's info page. Xpander (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The Teahouse discussion can be found (for now) at WP:Teahouse#Made an article in place of an redirect. Please see also User talk:Voorts#Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School and Talk:Protestant and Catholic Tübingen School. Wikishovel (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Like Wikishovel, I am mystified—no, make it stunned—that Xpander thinks this edit-warring is justified. In what sense are they not being attributed as the page creator sufficiently for their ego? Do they mean that the page creation log isn't saying that they are? Uh, that's something the software does, that by design no one has control over. Wetman is going to get credit for creating the page, yes, as the empty redirect it was apparently quite happy to have been for 15 years. As noted, no editor familiar with how our processes work would doubt that Xpander, in practical terms, created the article by translating the dewiki article, regardless of what the logs say.

Xpander's repeated reversion to the redirect is, frankly, childish behavior that smacks of page ownership. I strongly remind them not to expect rewards for their editing.

I also reject their argument that 3RRNO#1 shields them as they were merely always "reverting their own edit". Technically that might be arguable, but it is inarguable that, especially given their statement that this was a protest over not getting credit for something no one really expects credit for, they did so in a manner calculated to cause maximum disruption and interfere with the work of others. To allow this to pass on that basis would be opening up a whole new way to game the system. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: I also commend WP:NO THANKS to Xpander1's attention. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

User:92.238.20.255 reported by User:Expert on all topics (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

User being reported: 92.238.20.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Updated content"
19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Updated content"
19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"
19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"
19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) "Deleted content"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This IP is trying to censor information in that article --Expert on all topics (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I undid that block and restored it because simply removing the block isn't really an option in response to actually disruptive editing, but the IP editor's behavior wasn't the main issue in this edit war. I'll send warnings around to people who should know better. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Kelvintjy reported by User:Raoul mishima (Result: Stale)

Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan
User being reported: Kelvintjy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan&oldid=1217491179

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See July 24th 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See "Biased" https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Political_dissidence_in_the_Empire_of_Japan

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelvintjy

Comments:

Hello the user Kelvintjy has been engaged in another war last summer and was banned from the Soka Gakkai page. He's been pursuing an edit war on the Dissidence page too without daring give explanations on the talk page though he was invited to do it many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoul mishima (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Stale Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: