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

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

Revision as of 06:36, 9 October 2015 editWikiWikiWayne (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users37,087 edits →User:Checkingfax reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ): repair numbering← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:05, 6 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,782 edits →User:Tejoshkriyo reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: ): Page protected (using responseHelper)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
	<noinclude>{{pp~~-move-indef~~}}{{/Header}}]		<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~296~~		\|counter = 490
	\|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. -->

			== ], IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for a week) ==
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|French mother sauces}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: both trouted) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hippo43}}, {{userlinks\|2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:6C91:81FE:34E1:80E0}}, also {{userlinks\|2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:A9B8:61A6:B4BA:3525}} and other IP's with the same prefix

			'''Previous version reverted to (Hippo43):''' ]
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|File:08klemperer.jpg}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Stefan2}}

			'''Previous version reverted to (IP):''' ]
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:08klemperer.jpg&oldid=684143704

			'''Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:'''
	<!-- 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 IP'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 -->
			# ] (probably same IP)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# ]
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			# ]
			# ]

			There are a few more, just look at which is nothing but 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 -->
	Resolution is available in edits on talk page and in edit summaries. With each revert a new additional explanation was given as well as discussion that adding the template was incorrect. See ]. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 22:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ] (IP), ] (Hippo43, the IP warned them)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], discussion is still on talk at ]
	Seeking discussion at ] is not edit warring. Are you honestly suggesting that I should list a file for deletion without tagging the file as such? Enforcing ] is not edit warring per ] §5. Also, you are not to delete file deletion tags from file information pages. That is to be done by an admin when the tag is evaluated after the timeframe specified in the template has expired, see {{tl\|uw-idt1}}. That's why we have templates such as {{tl\|hangon}} and {{tl\|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}. --] (]) 22:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
	: Also, the {{tl\|non-free reduce}} template is unrelated to the first two edits as it is about a different part of ]. --] (]) 22:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to Hippo43's talk page:''' ]
	::You should simply not be listing the file for deletion when you have no rationale and it is disputed, and should especially not reintroduce those templates. Your edits amount to edit-warring despite my efforts to introduce clarifying text you simply reinserted the template without so much as specifying any reason why it should belong. Deletion tags can be deleted as per ] and do not need to be closed by admins as on commons. Neither does edit-warring require the exact same reverts, it specifies '''reverts in general'''. This is clear disruptive behavior and amounts to ], and the fact that the first three diffs are rotations of the same template makes no difference.
	::Each of my edits added content or specific rationale despite being clearly infer-able from the description text. I tried to improve the text and add information on why this page would be inapplicable for deletion. This is despite policy dictating that it isn't to use the specific template for rationale. Neither is it needed to specifically state that a new image of a '''dead''' author can not be taken, that can be inferred and was included in the description and clarified with each subsequent edit. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 22:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
	:::The addition of {{tl\|non-free reduce}} has nothing to do with the other edits as it has nothing to do with the points at ] which were addressed in the {{tl\|di-disputed fair use rationale}} template. ] only applies in the event of obviously erroneous deletion tags. The snowball clause is normally only to be used if a lot of users disagree with the nominator and few agree with the nominator, but there were only two editors who made any statements about the file's compliance with ] – you and me. Hardly the kind of 'mass agreement' that you'd expect in snowball cases. In this case, you just need to check ] and ] and you will immediately spot the errors in ]:
	:::# ] states 'The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item' but the page says 'his article' without specifying any article title. The page does not even specify who 'he' is (although the person's last name appears in the file name).
	:::# ] states that there should be 'a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item' but the page states that the file is to be used 'to illustrate his article' without telling why the image is supposed to illustrate the article or on what rationale it should illustrate the article.
	:::# ] states 'What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?' i.e. the FUR should explain why the image is thought to comply with ] and ] but there is no information whatsoever about this. See for example ] §7 which addresses some images which do not satisfy ]. The image is sourced to a newspaper, and newspapers contain many images of the kind which are deemed unacceptable per ] §7. How can I tell if this is one of those kinds of images when there is no information about this on the file information page?
	:::# Next bullet point at ]: 'If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original?' but there is no statement about ] anywhere on the page. The article uses a significantly smaller thumbnail, so why do we need this larger image on the file information page?
	:::# Next bullet point at ]: 'What purpose does the image serve in the article?' The file information page only says 'to illustrate his article' but the purpose of an image is always to 'illustrate' an article. It is obvious that you need to be more specific, as you see from reading the four indented bullet points below this bullet point.
	:::# Next non-indented bullet point at ]: 'Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media.' The file information page states 'Dead in 2012'. ] states 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created'. That he is dead shows that no content can be created, but is there any free content which already exists? It seems that he worked for several years in the United States, and United States copyright law is a bit 'special' in that photos first published in the United States may be in the public domain in the United States because it was published without a copyright notice before 1989 or without a copyright renewal before 1964. Why are there for example thought not to be any such photos? The copyright notice & renewal rules can't be applied to photographs first published outside the United States, though – such photos normally remain copyrighted for 95 years from publication in the United States. --] (]) 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
	::::::{{tl\|non-free reduce}} was added twice and in addition to being ] it does not fall under <br>{{talkquote\|Removal of clear copyright violations or content that '''unquestionably''' violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.}}<br>Also 3RR-violation is unrelated to reason for the reverts, specifically:<br>{{talkquote\|An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.}}<br>There key here is unquestionable, and with rationale specified in the exact manner allowed by you even you concede the image is allowed-that doesn't sound like a unquestionable violation.
	::::::What we are getting at is that in each edit I made it full clear how and that I was trying to answer your specific concerns and you ignored and chose not to engage-simply readding the templates.]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::As far as I can see, I have only added {{tl\|non-free reduce}} ''once'' to the page. After this, another user added the template to the page, though. --] (]) 00:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to IP's talk page:''' ], ]
	* Comment: I think this is a TROUT to both. To CFCF, you should not remove FFD tags; they should only be removed by SNOW if it is clear at FFD that the discussion is in favor of keeping the image. Additionally, Stefan is right about the non-free reduce aspect - that image is larger than it needs to be here. To Stefan2, a quick check shows that this seems like a valid image to be used (the infobox image for a deceased person) and while the NFCC rationale criteria needed to be fixed up, tagging for deletion is absolutely not the right way to go about it; it is a fixable problem that did need to be fixed to meet policy, but not with a heavy hand and edit warring to make it. --] (]) 23:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
	** The problem is that CFCF insisted that the ] violations mustn't be corrected. Per ], files which do not satisfy ] are to be deleted – and since CFCF goes against any attempt to fix the file, the only other outcome is deletion. --] (]) 00:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	:::No that is not the problem, each and every edit I made opted to clarify. Also instead of tagging the file as being needed to improve or actually filling out the rationale as per your liking yourself you started out with deletion. The text included the entire rational, it does not need to be spelt out in your preferred machine-readable format, that is policy (]). The problem is that readding frivolous deletion tags when the rationale is clearly specified in text is ] in addition to here a violation of ]. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	::::As noted above, the so-called 'rationale' didn't contain any of the elements needed in a rationale, and without knowing anything about the origin of the image, it is not possible to write a fair use rationale which properly addresses ] or ]. --] (]) 00:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	:::::'''2. & 4. ''' The rationale linked those from the start ()! It specifies the NYTIMES obituary where the image was from and it specified that it was to be used in the article on Klemens von Klemperer only - so that proposition is patently false.<br>Also that is not the issue at hand here. The fact is that you violated 3RR despite my best attempts to in each edit to clarify, discuss, explain and to comply to your preferred format for showing the rationale (despite not needing to). ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 00:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	::::::For 2, you need to know if it is an image of the kind mentioned in ] §7 or not. I am not able to tell whether this is the case from that source alone. The fact that the image comes from a newspaper could suggest this. About 4, sorry, I must have mixed this up with another image. --] (]) 01:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	* Stefan2 has reached but not exceeded 3RR (two of the diffs provided were not reverts). He/she should avoid this in future by seeking outside assistance instead of warring with the tag. CFCF has 5 reverts within 24 hours, and I suggest a 24 hour block for a first offence. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 08:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	::That is entirely incorrect, and without any supportive evidence. Both has Stefan2 violated 3RR, and I have not. Each edit I made opted to answer Stefan2's concerns and did so. Despite my attempts to discuss and improve the rationale to exact spefication requested by a single user (and not supported by policy) templates were simply reintroduced. The fact that the templates differed in minor extent does not exempt from 3RR, they are all the same type of revert and calling it anything else is ]. They are either simple redirects or very close alternatives.]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 10:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	:::<small>I admit that this was in error, . I don't know how it happened and it must have been a miss-click from the watchlist page on my phone. Being one of the lasts edits of the night I was unable to see that it was accidental before this morning (I have since reverted it and will make sure to disable the rollback option on my phone (those links are less than 0,5mm high). ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 10:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)</small>
	::::<small>I accept your explanation, but that was your fifth revert in 24 hours. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 11:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)</small>
	::{{edit conflict}} Well, seeking outside assistance was precisely the intention of listing the file at ] – that's one of the places where you can find outside assistance about files. It might have been better to list the file at ] instead, but it was late and I guess I was tired and that I didn't think as clearly as I should have. Sorry about that. Still, inserting the {{tl\|ffd}} template was not a reversion, nor was inserting the {{tl\|non-free reduce}} template a reversion. --] (]) 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	:::Inserting {{tl\|Ffd}} is a very clear example of a revert, even though it was not the exact same template merely an alternative with ever so slightly different wording and formatting. As for {{tl\|Non-free reduce}} it is at least considered ] to add it just after the prolonged issues with adhering to exact specifications of an arbitrary non-required template. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 11:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	::::Inserting FFd was not a revert. That is a different template with a different purpose (deletion discussion rather than speedy deletion). I'm not interested in analysing this further and presenting the diffs - the history of the page is sufficient evidence to any administrator of your violation of 3RR. I would also prefer not to sully your clean block log. What I am looking for at this stage is some kind of acceptance of your actions and reassurance that it will not reoccur. Your combative attitude is not really helping. Regards — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 11:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I will agree I have acted rashly in this case and have potentially overstepped my bounds. I did not consider removing the template once rationale had been filled out as a revert, but take it to heart. That said I am gladdened and hopeful that in the future we can use ] in lieu of deletion nominations. As was clear there was a rationale for this image and if it were that the original uploader was not able to comment upon a deletion nomination within the specified time-period there is risk it may occur in error without sufficient review. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 11:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	::::::In that case I second {{ul\|Masem}}'s suggestion above. Consider yourselves trouted and let's move on. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 11:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked) ==
			I made the table, so of course I would like to keep it in, but at this point neither the IP nor Hippo43 seems interested in a discussion at all. Please end this month-long edit war. :-( ] (]) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|one week}} Both editors, from the article. ] (]) 05:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporting editor blocked 48 hours) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Aziz Sancar}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Crunchyroll}} <br />
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684559249
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GachaDog}}
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684559564
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684560203
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aziz_Sancar&oldid=684561138
	:Blocked 24 hours. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 11:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	:I think Logom's actions need looking at too, but don't have time now. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 11:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	::] was reported by ] at AIV. While not vandalism, it's clear they were also edit warring. Blocked 24 hours. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 Hours ) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Scottish Parliament election, 2016}} <br />
			# "We don’t need an owners field to put bigger companies as the owner"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2.98.38.127}}
			#
			#
			#
			# "Because you can’t use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent. Crunchy roll is a Joint venture of SPT and Aniplex"

	<!-- 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	#
	<!-- 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:

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	::I am disappointed that ] has reported me for this. I am mewrely trying to defend a consensus that was previously established by a large number of wikipedia editors. On a number of occassions I have tried to point ] and others in the direction of where this consensus was established. I have also engaged on the Talk page and ] has not. Instead the argum,ent has been misrepressented (I suspect because no one has bothered to go and check what consensus was established). I have been trying to engage in dialogue on various talk pages, the same can't be said for others. When I revert an edit, I give good reason why, others have just done so. I am disappointed that ] has reported me for this and has also started going through my edit history to start unding other constructive edits I have made, again ] fails to say why or engage properly on the talk page. I am trying to act in good faith. It is ashame I am not met with the sameapproach. ] (]) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	You have been warned about your edit warring, yet you continue to do it! You have not pointed out where this supposed consensus was reached. ] (]) 13:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	:GB fan beat me to it. Blocked for 31 hours. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 13:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 3 months) ==
	<!-- 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\|Khulna Division}}
	Previous version reverted to: {{diff\|Book_of_Isaiah\|684595152\|684279493}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|76.68.24.171}}
	<!-- 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\|Book_of_Isaiah\|684622275\|684620860}}
	# {{diff\|Book_of_Isaiah\|684620312\|684601442}}
	# {{diff\|Book_of_Isaiah\|684601258\|684599569}}
	# {{diff\|Book_of_Isaiah\|684599569\|684598721}}
	# {{diff\|Book_of_Isaiah\|684624283\|684622602}}
	# {{diff\|Book_of_Isaiah\|684624437\|684624283}}

			'''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: {{diff\|User_talk:Ofthepeace\|684615983\|684601485}}

			'''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: I have informed the user of basic requirements for editing Misplaced Pages at {{diff\|User_talk:Ofthepeace\|684281277\|684280217}}.
			#
			#
			#

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

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	The reported user is a fundamentalist POV-pusher who does not recognize ], ] and ]. ] (]) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	:Blocked 24 hours — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked) ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Bongbong Marcos}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Adon12}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Paul Pelosi}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|138.88.222.231}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|684628191\|20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 684597428 by ] (]) Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism per ]"
	# {{diff2\|684584749\|15:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 684583988 by ] (]) Suggest discussing this on talk page ]"
	# {{diff2\|684583315\|15:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)}} "source is not reliable"
	# {{diff2\|684582780\|15:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|684597556\|16:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{diff2\|1267112015\|17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Citation"
			# {{diff2\|1267110235\|17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Link"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267091158\|diff=1267095785\|label=Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267093244\|15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1267093459\|15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1267093933\|15:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Links"
			## {{diff2\|1267094425\|15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Vineyard"
			## {{diff2\|1267094621\|15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit California"
			## {{diff2\|1267094854\|15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Links"
			## {{diff2\|1267095785\|15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Citation"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267087059\|diff=1267090202\|label=Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267089646\|15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1267090202\|15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1266884965\|diff=1266991690\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266890042\|18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266890246\|18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266891715\|18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266892097\|18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266894041\|18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266894509\|18:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266984350\|03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266991690\|03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1266222137\|diff=1266884722\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266666459\|18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266666834\|18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266668916\|18:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266669951\|18:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266670057\|18:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266680601\|19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266680754\|19:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266681012\|19:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266682107\|19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266683528\|19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266724322\|23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266743335\|01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266744071\|01:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266858445\|15:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266858776\|15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859007\|15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859305\|15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859607\|15:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859917\|15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266860078\|15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266860307\|15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266861030\|15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266861342\|15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266861793\|15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266862475\|15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266862620\|15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266863695\|15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266868888\|16:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266869441\|16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266870020\|16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266879559\|17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266879723\|17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266880902\|17:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266881725\|17:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266882540\|17:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266884192\|17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266884722\|17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			*See ]

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	User reverted three different editors. These are this user's only contributions, subsequent to two identical reverts by IP 180.191.158.132 ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 20:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
	:Blocked 24 hours — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 20:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

			EW with IDHT and copyvios. – ] (]) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Comments) ==

			User uses disingenuous edit summaries ("Edit Citation") to reassert edits , as noted by the difference between successive attempts (addition of three do-nothing spaces to cite template). <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>] (]) 18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|User talk:MarkDennehy}} <br />
			*{{AN3\|ab}} ] (]) 03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ZH8000}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<!-- 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\|Wounded Knee Massacre}}
	Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AOverview_of_gun_laws_by_nation&type=revision&diff=684428707&oldid=684407207

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GreenMeansGo}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	This user is constantly adding passive-aggressive text naming me as an individual on both the talk page of the subject and on my user talk page, to the point where they are in effect harassing me. This is not an edit war over a data point or an article any longer for them; it's now personalised trolling of some sort. Compromise isn't even possible to approach because the edit is just a personal attack. ] (]) 23:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:Please see ]. -- ] (]) 23:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
			#
	:I recommend a ] here. {{u\|MarkDennehy}} had little cause to remove ] article talk page post. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:: ZH8000's reply illustrates the problem here - "To the knowledge of User:MarkDennehy" was the title of his edit. Not "Ammunition acquisition for Swiss militia guns", but specifically naming an individual; the actual topic was not the main concern for this user. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	*{{AN3\|n}} I'm not taking any action against either party. Neither acquitted themselves well. MarkDennehy should not have removed ZH8000's post at the article Talk page. ZH8000 could have made his post in a different way. His choice was at best odd. Neither party had any basis for edit-warring. Someone should have stopped earlier and reported it. Finally, ZH8000 posted three warnings to MarkDennehy's Talk page. The first one (refactoring) was fine. The second (refactoring) was not, as the first had already been removed by MarkDennehy. ZH8000 had no basis for insisting. The third (edit-warring) was fine because it was a new warning.--] (]) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ]'s edit warring (]) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	I added yesterday the Italian pronounciation of the word "Mafia" in the same page, as it was already been done for similar pages (]). But a registered user, who was already blocked twice for edit warring, has started an edit war reverting all I do, even when I wrote clearly "Italian pronunciation:" and when I added also British and American pronounciations too. I tried talking to him, asking why my edits were incorrect and had made the article worse. He answered just that theye were useless because everyone know how it is pronounced and most people cannot read IPA. I wonder why he does not says the same for "Pizza" and similar words. Now I am asking you administrators: am I wrong or is he?
	Thank you. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Both blocked. IP, you need to respect the ] principle. If you are reverted, don't try to reapply the same edit again but take it to talk. Kurzon has violated 3RR on the article and has been blocked accordingly. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 11:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> I do not often use ANI, as I feel that it is far preferable to discuss and find a peaceful resolution, but in this case I feel my hand has been forced. I attempted to speak with the edit warring editor many times, and even asked them to self revert on many occassions, both on their own talk page as well as the article in question's talk page. They mockingly said "Have fun I guess." about coming to ANI, though I would have much rather we continued to discuss the subject and the sources in dispute on the talk page. At this point they are 5 edits in to a edit war and I politely stopped at 3 edits so as not to violate ]. I am a bit surprised it came to this and I apologize in advance to any admin who may now need to block the offending editor and revert to the prior consensus and stable lead on the article which had been present for many months before this editor aggressively became involved just today.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
	== ] reported by ] (Result:blocked for 24 hours) ==
			* Well, the first edit is just a crappy source that I randomly found pop up in a change on my watchlist. The two edits are consecutive. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page and offer a resolution. But since this seems to be a slow-motion edit war by OP going back , we may have some OWN issues to unpack. ]] 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			:And again, I would just say that any points to be made should be made on the article talk page, but that reverting 5 times (or 4 depending on how you count them), still is in violation of the 3RR rule which is pretty clear and strict. ] (]) 18:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Far Cry}} <br />
			:I see three reverts, . , and . maybe could maybe be a revert, depending on how long that source has been sitting in the article and if you're squinting hard enough. Iljhgtn also has made three reverts. ] (]) 18:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|207.161.234.95}}
			:: counts as a partial revert not of the full text with all sources included but absolutely includes the primary material being discussed in the talk page. ] (]) 18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That was captured in my first diff. Consecutive edits are a single revert. ] (]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The request currently stands out there for the editor to self-revert and for the discussion to resume on the article talk page. ] (]) 18:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Oh good lord. You've been . ]] 18:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Where have you been in this discussion since you mentioned that this article is on your talk page? My first seeing you there was today, and you proceeded to force a new version of the lead and revert in rapid succession to your desired version. Again, I am happy to discuss this on the article talk page if you would self-revert and continue the discussion there. ] (]) 18:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::If you dispute a single source, I think that made sense for removal, due to the letter submission aspect of it, but in general I think it would have been best to discuss further on the talk page as well as maybe provide some reliable sources of your own or dispute the content of the other sources at the point of the talk page, and not simply to angrily enter into a series of reverts.
			:::::::Here were some of the other sources by the way, and I don't think you've disputed the reliability of these: , , .
			:::::::Though you've now removed all of these from the article. ] (]) 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Cool. Go...like...''get consensus''. Just because you made a change and reverted it for a year and half doesn't mean you have consensus. ]] 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Consensus is not always clear, and does not always merely side with a majority. Consensus is also reflected at least in part by reflecting what the reliable sources say. All I have asked is that we have a discussion around the reliable sources, and you self-revert in the meantime. Your response has been only to be dismissive and to not engage with the point raised, which is that we must ]. ] (]) 19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: is a partial revert of a . I would not consider this part of 3RR for today. ] ] 18:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nv}} {{U\|Iljhgtn}} and {{U\|GreenMeansGo}}, take the discussion elsewhere. ] ] 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Ok. Thanks for reviewing this. ] (]) 19:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<!-- 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\|Ponnunjal (film)}}
	IP editor in violation of 3RR and refusing to follow BOLD... Two dissenting editors who have provided multiple reliable secondary sources that refer to a new game in the Far Cry series as a "spin off", as opposed to a part of the main sequence.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tamilfilmsbuff}}
	IP's original edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684521743&oldid=684521116
	This was reverted by AdrianGamer with source: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684567707&oldid=684566599

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	IP editor reverted AdrianGamer again and further sources were provided in article and on the IP's talk page. A total of 7 reverts from the IP now.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- 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. -->
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262246919\|diff=1267230449\|label=Consecutive edits made from 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) to 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			## {{diff2\|1267230326\|05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684724932&oldid=684712001
			## {{diff2\|1267230449\|05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684726954&oldid=684726410
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684729168&oldid=684728582
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684730241&oldid=684729948
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684730670&oldid=684730418
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Far_Cry&diff=684731509&oldid=684731218

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- 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=Far_Cry&curid=12311762&diff=684730418&oldid=684730241
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A207.161.234.95&type=revision&diff=684730522&oldid=684729805

	<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Far_Cry&diff=684730272&oldid=637431743

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

	-- ] (]) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:This may be a moot report. I didn't think ARV would handle this IP because it's not clear vandalism just edit warring, but the user is now vandalizing user pages of involved editors and attempting to revert this report. -- ] (]) 12:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
	:I have blocked on the basis of this report, as the edit warring is clear. While they were not primary reasons for the block, the IP's vandalism of others' user pages and disruption of this noticeboard were also unacceptable. ] ] 12:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

			Also at '']''. His edits don't match the sources, and reverts good edits that do. Also biased towards the subject as he removes mixed/negative reviews, as seen in '']''. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">] ] </span> 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
			:{{An3\|noex}} There's only ''two'', their first edits to the article in a couple of months. And, if there are issues at other articles, maybe this is properly handled at AN/I. ] (]) 05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned user(s)) ==

	'''Page:''' ~~{{pagelinks\|RPG-29}}~~ ~~<br~~ />		'''Page:''' ]
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|LeuCeaMia}}

			'''User being reported:''' ]
	] is unwilling to take part on a civil dialogue and keep making false accusation and personal attacks; on mine and the article's talk page. Also, ] is running an edit war with disruptive edits.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- 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:''' , the whole section
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684531415&oldid=681606039
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684716088&oldid=684558323
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684723153&oldid=684722161
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684733355&oldid=684724525

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			User insists on adding irrelevant material in the lede. Irrelevancy aside, he fails to get consensus to include the challenged material (by 2 users at least in the talk page) per ] and edit-wars instead to get it in.
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RPG-29&diff=684733355&oldid=684724525

			I'd love to add also that he argued that the religion of the suspect in the lede is {{tq\|Absolutely relevant to the potential motive for the attack and therefore}} in this edit summary which can only imply that he believes that being a Muslim is enough of a motive to commit terrorist attacks.
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			*{{AN3\|w}} No 3RR violation and user was warned of the 1RR restriction after their last edit. ] ] 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:RPG-29&diff=684726405&oldid=684723008

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Subcompact crossover SUV}} <br/>
	After my response on the article talk page, another revert was immediately done. ] (]) 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
			'''Previous version:''' <br/>
	:You've both reached 3 reverts within 24 hours. I strongly suggest it stops now otherwise blocks will be issued to both of you. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 13:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:: I have made two reverts, the first, was in good faith with the renew of the url and to expand the references for further clarification, see diff: . ] on the contrary, vandalized my user and talk page with some awkward accusation after I left him/her a message. Furthermore, even at the article's talk page, ] keep arguing with an abusive language, and after I proposed a solution, the User went straight to revert the article once more, see diff: . The aforementioned User have reached four reverts in 24 hours not only three. Thanks ] (]) 14:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
			#
	*{{AN3\|p}} ] ] 04:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
			'''Comments:'''
			This editor has reverted many useful edits, and most of my edits, other users' edits, without explaining their reverting of edits with citations .
			*{{AN3\|nv}} ] ] 07:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Withdrawn) ==
	Reporter is probable sock-pocket with no edits aside from the adding back of false outdated information, which was originally added by another probable sock-puppet. The source is not only self published but has already been said as unverified and a likely hoax by its author.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Zionism}} <br />
	== ]'s disruptive edit warring ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|إيان}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	] is keeping making an uncorrect edit (the IPA is corrupted because of uncorrect syntax) and is keeping reverting my text where I had already explained what he wants to say but he wants to be the one who says it (moreover, the problem which we were talking about in the talk page had already been solved in the article, and the source he now is keeping adding has already been added in the article by another user, which makes this edit-war totally needless).
	<br>
	Obviously, I won't edit anything until an administrator decides. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

			See ,
	Keeps edit warring ] with obvious nationalist motives (making claims that openly contradict information in main articles, removing academic sources without any explanation while doing so), and is impossible to communicate with. Approaches have been either met with personal attacks or ignored. Given there was a similar case in March, I strongly suspect this is another sock puppet of ]. --] (]) 18:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	No edit war rules were violated, since no more than three reverts were made in 24 hours. You can see from the history who is edit warring in the article, and who has being blocked for it and that is not me, but ]. ] has being engaged in edit warring, in the same article, and is keep deleting the victories of the one side, for months now, which is a sign of POV and disruptive editing. In addition it has engaged in team work in pushing POV with other users, which is a sign of a meat puppet.Ron1978 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	:Reverting three times or less on a regular basis, while throwing in the same one-liners and personal attacks whilst refusing to discuss, is also edit warring. --] (]) 19:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	There is extensive discussion from my part in the talk page of the article, while there is none from ] who also keeps deleting all the victories of the one side, with out previous discussions on what so ever. The non-reliability of ] in what he is saying, including the false personal attacks, is obvious here, in each case. He is the one that calls nationalists the ones that are adding the NPOV, including me, while he is keep deleting it and comes with false accusations and reports them each time. A look in the talk page, and in the history of the article proves what I am sayingRon1978 (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:So how come you conveniently ignore the main articles? If you want to make changes, that's the place to start. --] (]) 22:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned; indefinitely blocked) ==
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff\|oldid=684843735\|diff=684848089\|label=Consecutive edits made from 04:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 04:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|684847980\|04:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Reverted ] edits by Winkelvi: //en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Caitlyn_Jenner&oldid=681428873#Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_.28policy.29.2FArchive_121.23MOS:IDENTITY_clarification_close. (])"
	## {{diff2\|684848089\|04:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Brandon Jenner */ retired"
	### '''Comment''' - This is a bonifide edit not a revert ] (]) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|684842483\|03:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Reverted ] edits by ] (]): See ] (gender) and Village Pump (archive). (])"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Shahada}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|684843021\|03:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} ""

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Zyn225}}
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Not a 3RR violation, however, article is connected to ], which has discretionary sanctions attached to it. DS warning placed on editor's talk page -- editor chose to revert again in spite of warning. Page protection requested prior to reversion by editor being reported. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 04:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267343878\|18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
			# {{diff2\|1267343718\|18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
			# {{diff2\|1267343494\|18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
			# {{diff2\|1267342322\|18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* '''Comment''' - I have placed a dialogue request at Usertalk:Winkelvi to work this out like Wikipedians but there has been no response. Winkelvi has reverted ] 4-times in less than 24-hours. I have done 2 reversions in good faith to uphold the MOS:IDENTITY policy. The ] article is 1RR AFAIK. Brandon & Leah is 3RR AFAIK. I rely on my interpretion of ] coupled with the . Please advise. IMHO, Winkelvi is illinformed, and therefore his/her good faith reverts are in fact the only disruption to the page, and he/she should be slapped with a trout before things escalate. Cheers! ] (]) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267343727\|18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing."
			# {{diff2\|1267343865\|18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning notice on ]."

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Timi Yuro}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Bandstandmike}}

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

			Single purpose account, does not grasp ] ]. ] 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff\|oldid=684854744\|diff=684855799\|label=Consecutive edits made from 05:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|684855762\|05:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} ""
	## {{diff2\|684855799\|05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Influence */"
	# {{diff\|oldid=684852985\|diff=684853684\|label=Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) to 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|684853620\|05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Influence */"
	## {{diff2\|684853684\|05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff\|oldid=684699933\|diff=684840662\|label=Consecutive edits made from 22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC) to 02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|684814137\|22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Influence */"
	## {{diff2\|684814174\|22:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Influence */"
	## {{diff2\|684840662\|02:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Influence */"
	# {{diff2\|684697962\|06:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Influence */"

			:I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:I think some people are talking a Misplaced Pages page personally. Especially the anti Islam users.
	# {{diff2\|684852920\|05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (])"
			:A translation for the name chosen by Allah in his holy revelation to humanity sounds illogical to me. Do you use the translation of your name when you travel to a new country?
	# {{diff2\|684854818\|05:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]. (])"
			:It's very clear some people are deliberately ignorant because of their personal beliefs. I am surprised this is even allowed from a non Muslim to edit a page about Islam. Clearly you're doing what you like. This is a Misplaced Pages page where people come to learn. How would they even say the Shahada if you misguide them like this. The Shahada must be said with the True name Allah. ] (]) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|684856185\|05:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Vandalism on ]. (])"
			::{{re\|Zyn225}} The place to discuss your change is at ]. The reasons I'm not blocking you for edit-warring is because you are new and because you were not warned about edit-warring. I must also tell you, though, your idea of how Misplaced Pages works is wrong. We work by consensus, not by an editor's personal beliefs. Also, we do not restrict editors from voting on articles because of their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even their "expertise" in the subject matter. You are '''warned''' that if you return to edit-warring, you risk being blocked without further notice.--] (]) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] the user was warned about disruptive editing, but not edit warring and 3RR specifically. ] ] 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I know.--] (]) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::New yes but if I knew this is how information is served to normal people I would have stopped coming to this site ages ago. So let's be logical about the Shahada; the Testimony. So basically according to editors and consensus if someone says "There's no God but God" and "Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the servant and messenger of God" -- th
			:::FYI Prophet Muhammad did not even know the word "GOD". This is not the message that the messenger delivered. The Holy revealation; The Holy Quran is very clear about the identity of Allah. If you make a translation of the name you literally misguide everyone including yourself. This needn't debating when you think of it. Basically if a non Muslim from Siberia would come to Shahada page they'd get a word that English speakers non Muslims use. No Muslim uses the word "God" not in the Adhan, not in the prayers. Somethings should be transliterated otherwise it's misinterpretation. Also some translators in hope of selling religion and making people believe have normalized using the word God. Because let's be honest there is some kind of fear in some non Muslims when used the word Allah.
			:::Well what can I say except that everything would be clear when our soul reaches the throat. When we become corpses decomposing to skeletons. Then would we believe. Then would we become mindful of our creator. Grateful for every creation of Allah we enjoy everyday and every breath we take without paying anything. Gratitude that is not within disbelievers. Misplaced Pages needs better management. This is not acceptable that you let whoever hav upe an opinion about things they don't know. What do you except from disbelivers when you put this to vote? Do you expect them to accept the name Allah? ] (]) 19:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] you can either learn to work with disbelievers or you can go elsewhere. ] ] 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::No disbelievers have the right or the knowledge to educate the world about their creator Allah, and about religion. It's mockery when you do that. I am working with disbelievers; the Shahada should be properly translated so they are properly educated. If you say the translation you made of the Shahada you are not a Muslim. Jibrail (as) brought the word "Allah" with the revelations as per the command of Allah. Its not from Arabic speaking people and their tradition as you've stated.
			:::::Listen wether you believe or not believe its your choice, wether you accept or not that too your choice but to put the wrong and misinterpreted knowledge to the mass that's a heinous crime. It seems to me all the fuss and debate about this issue because these editors just can't accept the word Allah. Muslim is someone who submits their will to Allah as every other creation have done. Because the will of Allah is what people call the law of physics but its the law and will of Allah. So a non Muslim disbeliever should go elsewhere and not try to edit an Islamic page. ] (]) 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Blocked indefinitely per ] ] ] 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{re\|EvergreenFir}} I don't think my warning worked. Thanks for taking care of it - I was eating lunch. :-) --] (]) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"There is no God but God" --- is that your translation of the Shahada? Do you realize how illiterate and illogical the translation sounds when you don't use the true name of Allah? Not to mention the above statement is not the Shahada anymore. One of the 3 questions asked in the grave is Who is your Creator/Lord/Ilah/God? The true answer is Allah, I suppose you would not answer them with the very question you would be asked. Majority of humans can not say the truth. Because they did not worship their creator and now we are here trying to debate the Name? Well guess what all these translations would do no help. You would be called a liar. So consider the information people taking from here; it's far from being right and the truth. I do not accept this as a Muslim. How is this even logical that non Muslims are creating and editing topics about Muslims. Like thanks but no thanks. Not like this; misinterpreted to the core. ] (]) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jabust}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	There appears to be a conflict of interest here. Editor claims to control the subject's estate but is adding in information which is entirely unsourced which reads like an advert while boosting their own part in the subject's career. ] (]) 05:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

	There is no conflict of interest...I'm curious as to what egghead06 interest is, since this info has been on the page for quite sometime. I legally control her estate, and included links in the ref section to the CD releases which I speak of. I do run her official fan page, and it's letting fans know where they can come for information. I also control her music, and am just posting about current releases, and included links for the official press releases of both. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267352536\|19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) reverted vandalism by grudge-bearing stalker"
			# {{diff2\|1267352090\|19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1266663622\|17:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

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

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

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

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

Latest revision as of 02:05, 6 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Hippo43, IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by User:Mathnerd314159 (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

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

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

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

Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:

Diffs of IP's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: December 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

User being reported: 76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

what about their other ip addresses?

They are using slang in edit summary.

check this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

now check this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Bbb23,

again with another IP

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

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

@Bbb23,

Thank you so much for your time.

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See Talk:Paul Pelosi#Property portfolio

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

Page: 2025 New Orleans truck attack

User being reported: User:justthefacts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

See ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Categories: