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 23:46, 26 February 2020 editJohnbod (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,529 edits →User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: ): cmt← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:42, 7 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,862 edits →User:Csknp reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: ): Page protected (using responseHelper)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]		<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	{{pp-move\|small=yes}}		{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
Line 4:		Line 5:
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~404~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
	\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f		\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|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=" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~stale~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Withdrawn) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Zionism}} <br />
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|~~Krish990~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|إيان}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

			See ,

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

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

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

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	# on 9 February 2020
	# on 2 February 2020
	# on 29 January 2020
	# on 28 January 2020 at 18:07 (UTC)
	# on 28 January 2020 at 13:15 (UTC)
	# on 28 January 2020 at 09:12 (UTC) and many more times
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	User Krish990 has been edit warring the article ] since a long time stating the supporting characters Rithvik Arora and Kaveri Priyam also as main cast while the original main cast are only Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma. Despite discussions in talk page of the series by providing reliable sources to prove that incorrect, the user still reverts back and is firm in his point without properly supported sources. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)</small>
	:'''Result''': This was filed a long time ago, and there doesn't seem to be any extant issue, so closing as stale.  — ] (]) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

			:@] 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)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Czech Pirate Party}} <br />
			::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)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ThecentreCZ}}
			::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) ==
	'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

	'''~~Diff~~ of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267343727\|18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing."

			# {{diff2\|1267343865\|18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning notice on ]."
	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

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


			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	User ignores all warnings and refuses reply and explain their edits on talkpage and continues edit warring - deleting the word "liberal" and "liberalism" from the page based on a series of ] statements; while the term is widely sourced by mainstream sources: ] (]) 14:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

			Single purpose account, does not grasp ] ]. ] 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	That is not true, the one who started edit warring is ]. As the first one he broken rule of '''3 reverts within 24 hours.''' --] (]) 14:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
	'''
	:I believe that the point here is that you repeatedly remove reliably sourced material without an explanation backed by any ] on encyclopedic content, ignoring discussion.--] (]) 16:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

			:I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.
	{{an3\|nv}}. There needs to be ''four'' reverts made in the span of 24 hours for ] to be breached, which is not the case here. ] 02:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
			:I think some people are talking a Misplaced Pages page personally. Especially the anti Islam users.
			:A translation for the name chosen by Allah in his holy revelation to humanity sounds illogical to me. Do you use the translation of your name when you travel to a new country?
			:It's very clear some people are deliberately ignorant because of their personal beliefs. I am surprised this is even allowed from a non Muslim to edit a page about Islam. Clearly you're doing what you like. This is a Misplaced Pages page where people come to learn. How would they even say the Shahada if you misguide them like this. The Shahada must be said with the True name Allah. ] (]) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{re\|Zyn225}} The place to discuss your change is at ]. The reasons I'm not blocking you for edit-warring is because you are new and because you were not warned about edit-warring. I must also tell you, though, your idea of how Misplaced Pages works is wrong. We work by consensus, not by an editor's personal beliefs. Also, we do not restrict editors from voting on articles because of their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even their "expertise" in the subject matter. You are '''warned''' that if you return to edit-warring, you risk being blocked without further notice.--] (]) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@] the user was warned about disruptive editing, but not edit warring and 3RR specifically. ] ] 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I know.--] (]) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::New yes but if I knew this is how information is served to normal people I would have stopped coming to this site ages ago. So let's be logical about the Shahada; the Testimony. So basically according to editors and consensus if someone says "There's no God but God" and "Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the servant and messenger of God" -- th
			:::FYI Prophet Muhammad did not even know the word "GOD". This is not the message that the messenger delivered. The Holy revealation; The Holy Quran is very clear about the identity of Allah. If you make a translation of the name you literally misguide everyone including yourself. This needn't debating when you think of it. Basically if a non Muslim from Siberia would come to Shahada page they'd get a word that English speakers non Muslims use. No Muslim uses the word "God" not in the Adhan, not in the prayers. Somethings should be transliterated otherwise it's misinterpretation. Also some translators in hope of selling religion and making people believe have normalized using the word God. Because let's be honest there is some kind of fear in some non Muslims when used the word Allah.
			:::Well what can I say except that everything would be clear when our soul reaches the throat. When we become corpses decomposing to skeletons. Then would we believe. Then would we become mindful of our creator. Grateful for every creation of Allah we enjoy everyday and every breath we take without paying anything. Gratitude that is not within disbelievers. Misplaced Pages needs better management. This is not acceptable that you let whoever hav upe an opinion about things they don't know. What do you except from disbelivers when you put this to vote? Do you expect them to accept the name Allah? ] (]) 19:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] you can either learn to work with disbelievers or you can go elsewhere. ] ] 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::No disbelievers have the right or the knowledge to educate the world about their creator Allah, and about religion. It's mockery when you do that. I am working with disbelievers; the Shahada should be properly translated so they are properly educated. If you say the translation you made of the Shahada you are not a Muslim. Jibrail (as) brought the word "Allah" with the revelations as per the command of Allah. Its not from Arabic speaking people and their tradition as you've stated.
			:::::Listen wether you believe or not believe its your choice, wether you accept or not that too your choice but to put the wrong and misinterpreted knowledge to the mass that's a heinous crime. It seems to me all the fuss and debate about this issue because these editors just can't accept the word Allah. Muslim is someone who submits their will to Allah as every other creation have done. Because the will of Allah is what people call the law of physics but its the law and will of Allah. So a non Muslim disbeliever should go elsewhere and not try to edit an Islamic page. ] (]) 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Blocked indefinitely per ] ] ] 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{re\|EvergreenFir}} I don't think my warning worked. Thanks for taking care of it - I was eating lunch. :-) --] (]) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"There is no God but God" --- is that your translation of the Shahada? Do you realize how illiterate and illogical the translation sounds when you don't use the true name of Allah? Not to mention the above statement is not the Shahada anymore. One of the 3 questions asked in the grave is Who is your Creator/Lord/Ilah/God? The true answer is Allah, I suppose you would not answer them with the very question you would be asked. Majority of humans can not say the truth. Because they did not worship their creator and now we are here trying to debate the Name? Well guess what all these translations would do no help. You would be called a liar. So consider the information people taking from here; it's far from being right and the truth. I do not accept this as a Muslim. How is this even logical that non Muslims are creating and editing topics about Muslims. Like thanks but no thanks. Not like this; misinterpreted to the core. ] (]) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Dáil~~ ~~Éireann}}~~ ~~<br~~ />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2017–2019 Saudi Arabian purge}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|178.40.136.239}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''		'''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:'''
	'''Diff 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 ]"

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

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	An editor also tried to intervene on the editor's talk page:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	{{an3\|p\|one week}}. ] 02:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

			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)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
			: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)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Maryna_Tkachuk}}
			*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] ] 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Flchans}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result:48 hour block) ==
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Infernal City}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff\|oldid=942429137\|diff=942429345\|label=Consecutive edits made from 16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC) to 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|942429286\|16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "/* Awards and Commendations */"
	## {{diff2\|942429345\|16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "/* Professional activities */"
	# {{diff2\|942428833\|16:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 942428411 by ] (]) Dear JLAN, I am tired of mentioning that I am NOT a paid editor. I am still expecting proof of your false assumptions."

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|942424673\|16:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|942427324\|16:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]. (])"

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482274
	# {{diff2\|942419386\|15:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "/* removing unsourced info on BLP page */ new section"
			# 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>

	User keeps adding back unsourced (or at the very least lacking inline cites) information on a BLP. User has been warned a couple times on their talk page. They have now removed those warnings from their talk page. User has also posted borderline attack comments on my talk page. User is just in general a loose cannon. ] (]) 16:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Alright, I'll try to keep this concise. There's been a conflict/misunderstanding around this article involving Wikipedians such as ], ], ] and ]. Original article about Dr. Tkachuk has been in place on Ukrainian Misplaced Pages for over a year - ] ; I used that, as well as the openly available information at the university website to create a similarly fashioned article here on English Misplaced Pages. Please mind the Ukrainian article has never had any issues with notability, validity of information or otherwise. It was very amusing to find out people from India and Texas know much more on the subject than them. Since this is already turning into more text than it should, I'll just point out the chain of events:

			Persistent vandalism. Remove of content. ] (]) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	1) I present the draft, which, after some tweaks, is approved by Sulfuboy. The article is created.
	2) ArnabSaha flags is for G12 speedy deletion because of assumed/suspected copyright infringement of NaUKMA website materials. JLAN deletes the article and flags the Commons photograph for deletion as well.
	3) Following the necessary declarations, both the photo and the materials are verified, and the article is undeleted.
	4) I start working on it in order to improve it, add citations and the like.
	5) I face the article being vandalised by Sulfurboy, the information outright deleted, although being perfectly cited etc.

			* I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. ] (]) 10:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	Throughout this experience I faced lots of frustration with how English Misplaced Pages operates already. There were unbacked claims that the person isn't notable, unbacked claims that I am paid for writing this article. I am tired of all this and of how bureaucratic your enviroinment is. My aim is improving Misplaced Pages and making Ukrainian educational and scientific enviroinment better known to outside world. I am not a hired editor or paid employee, I just want people to leave me alone and let me make a decent article. I am open to criticism and advice, but when in a couple of hours someone deletes it based on a wild assumption - that's not advice, that's spit in the face.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	So, at this point, because I'm tired of all this story and furthermore just to prove the point I am not paid for this or anything - you can go ahead and delete the article alltogether, forever. Shame that English Misplaced Pages is not an accumulation of humanity's knowledge where people are equal and can work together, but instead is merely a bunch of bureaucrats feeding their egos. Peace. ] (]) 17:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	:I've requested G7 on the page as the author has requested deletion and they look to be the only one that has made any significant contribution to the page.] (]) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	Dear ], there is a world of difference between "You can go ahead and delete" and "You should delete" or "Please delete". BUT, I honestly have nothing against you viewing my words as such and placing your G7 or whatever you call it. By all means. Would be a great victory for Wikipedian bureaucracy. Best. ] (]) 17:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
	*Hello ]. The creator of the article, Flchans, placed a {{tl\|db-author}} tag on the article but the tag was removed by ] in the belief that the subject is notable. After reading the discussion above, are you OK with closing this AN3 complaint with no further action? ] (]) 01:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
	*{{u\|EdJohnston}}, Yep should be fine, editor has seemed to calm down so we should be good. ] (]) 03:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
	:*'''Result:''' Closing with no action per agreement of the submitter, and per the discussion above. ] (]) 03:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bengali–Assamese script}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tejoshkriyo}}
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|David Eddings}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Gleamian2}}

	;Previous version reverted to:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''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"."
	# {{diff2\|942491570\|00:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 942482169 by ] (])"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267598936\|diff=1267605297\|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	# {{diff2\|942476652\|22:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 942476520 by ] (])"
			## {{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\|942472012\|21:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Sources aren't reliable. There are numerous of people with the names of " David Carroll" and "Judith Leigh/Lee" and there are numerous people with the last name of "Eddings" that reside in USA. Unless there is actual court/police evidence of D. Eddings and J. Eddings committing crimes, this article will be continuously updated to edit/remove misplaced/misunderstood statements/documents concerning the Author David Eddings."
			## {{diff2\|1267605024\|21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
	# {{diff2\|942467941\|21:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Sources aren't reliable. There are numerous of people with the names of " David Carroll" and "Judith Leigh/Lee" and there are numerous people with the last name of "Eddings" that reside in USA. Unless there is actual court/police evidence of D. Eddings and J. Eddings committing crimes, this article will be continuously updated to edit/remove misplaced/misunderstood statements/documents concerning the Author David Eddings."
			## {{diff2\|1267605297\|21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "changed page number"
	# {{diff2\|942419456\|15:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 941577388 by ] (])"
			# {{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:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|~~942476435~~\|22:25, 24 ~~February~~ ~~2020~~ (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring. (])"		# {{diff2\|1267605728\|21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	# {{diff2\|~~942478186~~\|22:38, 24 ~~February~~ ~~2020~~ (UTC)}} "/* ~~Why~~ is ~~everyone~~ so ~~content on David Eddings being a child abuser? */~~"		# {{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>		<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)
	Note, my own last revert was only made after it seemed that Gleamian2 had decided to abandon his objection: "Whatever. I'm out. See ya.", and I wouldn't have otherwise. Also note he had removed old discussion from the article's talk page that was also about this same subject. Appears unwilling to discuss rationally, and only interested in whitewashing the article. –] (] • ]) 01:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
			:Also note this POV arrangement . - ] (]) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{AN3\|p}} All of you, including {{ping\|Millahnna}} consider yourself warned. {{ping\|Gleamian2}} <s>{{ping\|Millahnna}}</s><small>user didn't violate, but came close to</small>, you both violated ] and can be blocked. <s>Deacon, you didn't even try and join the discussion on the talkpage</s>, but decided to avoid 3RR and just edit war. None of this is appropriate. Either contribute like civil editors, or if it continues, i'll be issuing blocks after the protection ends. -- ] <small>]</small> 07:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Noted and thank you for the ping. For the record, and I absolutely should have been more clear about this on talk or in the edit summary, my last revert on that page was attempting to give a clean edit for reversion if it was decided to remove the content in question (the removals were also removing a ref we needed for other content on the page and a sentence that should be easy enough to source. I didn't want the material we actually needed to get lost in a blind deletion. But again, I absolutely should have said something about that being my intent. ] (]) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week block) ==
	:OK wait a second. I just looked at my edit history on that page and I'm now confused as to how I 3rrd. I first reverted the edit in its entirety because it broke something in the ref list and said such . Glemian did not respond to my concernes about breaking the code and reverted. After the content was removed again, I left the removal in place but edited to restore the reference that had been removed but is used elsewhere in the article . My final edit was the one I detailed above (and I have now dropped a note on the talk page to be more specific about my intent there) but for consistency. I have 3 edits on the page and they aren't even flat reverts of Gleamian's ideas, save the first. THe other two are both attempts to rescue a reference that was needed. ] (]) 08:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:Also, Deacon is in the talk page discussion. They absolutely participated. Has yet to specifically answer the questions. I'm concerned by this ANI; the facts don't seem to match the interpretations. ] (]) 08:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Millahnna}} You are correct about the talkpage part, I missed that. That said, your correct you didn't BREAK 3RR, but you were on the very edge of breaking it. It required 4 reverts, and I must of missed that. Even then though it still doesn't justify this. Any revert, regardless of it being the same content or not, counts as 3RR. ], ], ]. These three reverts count towards your 3RR. Had you reverted again you would have broke it. -- ] <small>]</small> 18:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:Well shoot. I only did anything because of the broken ref in that first removal. I'm not sure what I could have done different to make sure the ref got retained then. I tried keeping it both with and without the contested material but since that's being viewed as part of the content dispute, I guess I should have left it broken. I'm really confuddled by this. ] (]) 19:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2010: The Year We Make Contact}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours, reversed) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Æ's old account wasn't working}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|User talk:Debresser}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Debresser}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Earlier today on the talk page of another editor, then quickly thought better of it and . There were no intervening edits between the two and I withdrew it to not become involved and to avoid the drama. Since then Debresser has
			# {{diff2\|1267674154\|04:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			# {{diff2\|1267671902\|04:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Multiple editors also do not support ''your'' synthesised stance."
			# {{diff2\|1267633237\|00:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Something bad is going to happen to all of us if we don't just shut up here. Something terrible."
			# {{diff2\|1267482436\|08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Drop it."
			# {{diff2\|1267472758\|07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Just drop it."

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (not on the talk page, as I have no wish to discuss anything with someone so abrasive.
			# {{diff2\|1267468706\|06:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Unsourced content in lead */ r"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' it's on a talk page, and an aggressive battlefield approach is the last thing I want to discuss with.

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

			:Listen.
	I don't want the comment there, and I don't want to get involved with the battlefield idiocy displayed. It speaks volumes of that individual that a request not to re-add a deleted comment was ignored. - ] (]) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
			:], you started this whole ordeal by reverting everyone's edits without taking any into consideration, and attempting to bludgeon the talk page with your comments. You have also broken 3RR rule multiple times. Now stop please. ] (]) 04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] (]) 23:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
			::You can make up whatever narratives you want. I think your contributions to the talk page discussion speak for themselves. If you think I have violated a policy, then feel free to provide that evidence. You have also now made 5 reverts in 24 hours . – ] (]) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Am I seeing this right? We blocked someone for editing there own user page?--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 23:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Moxy}} The blocked user edit warred to keep in place a comment that its author withdrew before it was replied to. ] (]) 23:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::{{u\|331dot}}, how many times did the OP do the same? This block is not a good block. You don't go to someone's user talk page and then keep reverting. You blocked Debresser but not the OP, why? ] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::So you seem to be saying that a user is not permitted to withdraw their un-replied to comment? ] (]) 00:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::{{u\|331dot}}, I didn't say any of that. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::OK this looks very odd.....the user was restoring a post so they could reply to it but it was removed over and over again by original poster? Why cant the user reply to the post....what gives the poster the right to comment but not have to deal with a reply?.You can see how this looks backwards right. Odd an edit war on a user page ends up with the page owner being blocked.--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 23:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::Yeah kind of odd. I count at least 5 reverts by SchroCat. ] (]) 00:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::Most of which I will note have replies to them. ] (]) 00:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::Yes, it's a grey area between the right to withdraw comments and the desire of some users to keep all material that's been on their own user talk page. I'm not sure if there's a policy governing that. But to block one edit warrior and not the other, when both broke the 3RR, looks a bit like taking sides in the dispute.  — ] (]) 00:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::I am not taking a side. I am respecting the desire to attempt to deescalate a situation. ] (]) 00:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Generally reverting on your own page is exempt per ] point 2. Closest I could find to a policy on this. ] (]) 00:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::But reverting to keep a comment withdrawn by its author on the page to carry on a dispute is okay? I'm genuinely asking. ] (]) 00:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::At this point once it was reverted and replied to I would say yes. The over 4 reverts from SchroCat become less de-escalation and more just rubbing it in. ] (]) 00:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::{{u\|PackMecEng}}, right, OP could have brought this to EW a few edits ago, but to only block one person is wrong when the OP violated 3RR on someone else's talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::(ec) So once a user posts something to another's user talk page, if that user removes it, the page's owner can restore it and reply to it against the poster's wishes? ] (]) 00:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::From what I see, technically yes. Is there a policy that goes against the 3RR exemption? Because from what I see Debresser gets the exemption and SchoCat does not. Perhaps they should be more careful what they post on other peoples talk page and then not edit war with them about it? That could probably go for both people honestly. ] (]) 00:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::So SchoCat gets penalized for attempting to deescalate a situation because he made the error of posting something he would like to take back on to someone else's user talk page? Talk about a way to discourage communication between editors on their user talk pages. ] (]) 00:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	{{od\|::::::::::}} After the first or second revert I would agree with you, they are trying to deescalate. After the fifth and it was replied too? Hard to say with a straight face they were trying to deescalate isn't it? ] (]) 00:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:I would disagree as I don't feel the persistence of the person desiring to carry on a dispute should be rewarded. ] (]) 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	*As this is proving to be controversial, I have reversed my action pending further discussion. ] (]) 00:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:No way should an editor be able to go to a user page..... insult them or make any comment then remove it and subsequently get the user blocked for wishing to reply. Baiting and Block is not a precedent we should set--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::What evidence do you have of deliberate baiting on the part of SchoCat? ] (]) 00:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::It's a precedent in behavior.....just imagine I go to your talk page insult you then remove it knowing there's going to be an edit war... because you (as most would) want to reply and because of that the user will be blocked. This is not what we want to see happen....in my view the OP should be blocked for messing about in another user space.--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 00:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::It's clear to me this is much more complicated than it initially seemed to be to me, I'm going to hit the sack soon for the night and re look at this tomorrow; I apologize to all for causing difficulty. ] (]) 00:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::If other reviewers wish to do something here, they may without waiting for me. ] (]) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::I would suggest a ] to both users for escalating the dispute into a five-way revert war, rather than taking it to a forum such as this one ealier. But there's no need for blocks over this. On balance, per Moxy's comments above, I'd also suggest that the user talk page comment by the OP and the reply should be restored to the user talk page if that's what Debresser really wants. Withdrawn or not, they obviously saw the comment and wished to reply to it, on what is their own talk page.  — ] (]) 00:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::Agree no need for Block in this case. Both users have the same history and one more block probably won't make a difference here.--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::Also, kudos to {{u\|331dot}} for withdrawing their earlier block. I think that was the right decision.  — ] (]) 01:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Yes {{u\|331dot}} decision shows a willingness to see other people's point of view and great maturity in an administrator that is lacking in many talks.--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 01:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Debresser didn't just re-add SchroCat's comment. What Debresser did was It is understandable that a person would want to reply if they were called {{tq\|"arrogant"}}. ] (]) 05:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::I'll for you again, {{u\|Bus stop}}, and maybe you could take the time to read it more carefully. What SchroCat did was to call the ''actions'' of Debresser "arrogant". Still, never let a little thing like '''the truth''' get in the way of a bit of axe grinding. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 07:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

			* Æ's old account wasn't working blocked for a week. ] (]) 04:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::"The truth" encompasses the whole post, {{u\|Cassianto}}, which reads: {{tq\|"You call someone insolent for presuming you were shouting because you made an error in keeping your Capslock on, but you throw accusations of incompetence because someone erred in something they did? Can you see how that looks staggering arrogant, Debresser?"}} It was responded to. Simultaneously it was restored. ] (]) 11:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	*I think the only thing I have to add is that it would be good if we all(including me) moved on from this and I think this will serve as a good reminder to us all to consider our edits carefully before making them. ] (]) 08:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
	* It is a good thing I was unblocked, because I think I should have the right to say something ''before'' being blocked. I am familiar with the idea that a user should be able to remove a comment he regrets having made, as long as no other edit has resulted from it. Frankly speaking, I don't much agree with that rule, even if the reason is to deescalate a conflict, because the ''real way to deescalate a conflict'' is to think ''before posting''. In any case, I can respect it on other talkpages. Not so however on my own user talkpage. I think it is my right to restore something that was posted ''on my talkpage''. After all, I received a notification of it, so one can't say nothing happened.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Chance997}}
	: What I probably should have done right away, and have done in the mean time, is restore is with <code><nowiki><s>...</s></nowiki></code> code, that is, as something that was strikken. I hope that compromise will satisfy all involved.
	: On a sidenote, I strongly reject the WP:BATTLEFIELD accusation, and regret that editors start WP:WIKILAWYERING as soon as something happens they don't like.
	: Also on a sidenote, I don't see the mandatory warning regarding this discussion on my talkpage.
	: And on a further sidenote, I agree with the editors above commending ] for undoing his block when he saw that it was disputed. ] (]) 15:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: AWB revoked, warned) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Dan Lam}}
			#
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|MB}}
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|942653220\|00:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)}} "clean up, added ] tag"
	# {{diff2\|942590176\|16:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}} "clean up, added ] tag"
	# {{diff2\|942582246\|15:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 942576311 by ] (]): Per user talk page reasons (])"
	# {{diff2\|942576311\|14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 942514093 by ] (]): Per ] (])"

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|942594009\|17:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|942609415\|18:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}} "/* Infobox image */"

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

			I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	I warned both parties making edits to ] about the three revert rule. I even attempted to mediate the conflict over the infobox image on the pages talk page. Yet, user ] has persisted with yet another revert. I don't like reporting an experienced editor as he seems to be, but I'm afraid if his actions on the page continue to go unchecked it will further discourage the original page creator ] who is a new editor to Misplaced Pages from continuing to contribute. ] (]) 03:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	:{{u\|Sulfurboy}}, I don't follow this. The issue on the infobox image was resolved after you rendered your opinion that the image did not belong in the infobox. I have made some other unrelated changes to the article after that. I restored the orphan tag and explained on the other user's talk page that the article was still an orphan, contrary to their belief, and explained to them how to check that. ] 03:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::As you should be aware MB, there is no valid excuse to edit war, especially with AWB, the restoration of {{tl\|orphan}}. Hell, there is a tool linked directly in the box that shows . Continue to revert, and a block will be issued. For now, your AWB access is revoked. -- ] <small>]</small> 07:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation) ==

	'''~~Page~~:''' {{~~pagelinks~~\|~~Olivier Dubuquoy~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ToadGuy101}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johan764538}}

	'''Previous version reverted to:'''		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

	'''~~Diff~~ of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267751597\|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

	'''~~Diff~~ of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267301347\|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

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

	] is removing sourced material, is skirting the line of ownership with ]<sub>]]</sub> 14:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
			User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
	{{an3\|nv}} I see three reverts above, but the fourth link represents a new addition of material to the article, so is not a fourth reversion. After which editing appeared to stop. Both parties need to calm down and discuss the issue rationally at the talk page, rather than engaging in further edit warring.  — ] (]) 23:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1000mods}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mindxeraser}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Goths}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Andrew Lancaster}}

	'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
	# Revert 1
	~~::*Krakkos~~ ~~adds that ] are "frequently" referred to as Germani.~~ ~~(17:04, 24.02.20)~~		#
	~~::*Andrew~~ ~~Lancaster switches "frequently" to "sometimes".~~ ~~('''20:28, 25.02.2020''')~~		#
			#
	# Revert 2
	::*Krakkos adds a source from ].(08:39, 26.02.20)
	::*Andrew Lancaster changes the date of the source added by Krakkos. ('''09:34, 26.02.20''')
	# Revert 3
	::*Krakkos rewrites the lead through the use of quality sources. (17:45, 24.02.20)
	::*Andrew Lancaster rewrites content Krakkos added to the lead. ('''11:12, 26.02.20''')
	# Revert 4
	::*Krakkos corrects the date of a source from Peter Heather. (09:56, 26.02.20)
	::*Andrew Lancaster reverts Krakkos. ('''11:16, 26.02.20)'''
	# Revert 5
	::*Krakkos adds a ] template. (15:50, 26.02.20)
	::*Andrew Lancaster removes the citation needed template added by Krakkos. ('''18:25, 26.02.20''')
	# Revert 6
	::*Krakkos adds quotations. (18:20, 26.02.20)
	::*Andrew Lancaster removes the quotations added by Krakkos. ('''19:02, 26.02.20''')
	# Revert 7
	::*Krakkos adds the source ''The Fall of the Roman Empire'' by Peter Heather (17:04, 24.02.20)
	::*Andrew Lancaster switches the date of publication of ''The Fall of the Roman Empire'' by Peter Heather. ('''20:09, 26.02.20''')
	# Revert 8
	::*Krakkos adds a source from page 467 of ''The Fall of the Roman Empire'' by Peter Heather. (17:04, 24.02.20)
	::*Andrew Lancaster removes the source from page 467 of ''The Fall of the Roman Empire'' by Peter Heather added by Krakkos. ('''20:19, 26.02.20''')
	# Revert 9
	::*Krakkos adds a citation from Peter Heather in the '']'' about ]' claims of possible Gothic origins in Scandinavia. (17:45, 24.02.20)
	::*Andrew Lancaster rewrites what is cited from Peter Heather, claiming that Jordanes' "reliability is disputed" and that he writes about things which happened "more than 1000 years earlier". ('''20:26, 26.02.20''') In the cited source, Heather writes no such things, and Andrew Lancaster is therefore deliberately misrepresenting the sources (he does this all the time).

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	* Warning 1 (17.01.20)
	* Warning 2 (20.01.20)

	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Andrew Lancaster has recently flooded ] with sections and arguments, and i have replied to most of them. The section most relevant to the reverts is at ].

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* One month ago, Andrew Lancaster and i had an intense edit war at the article ]. As a result, we were on 17 January 2020 both warned by ] about future edit warring.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	* Edit warring continued, and on 20 January 2020, ] protected the article for 2 weeks, and warned us both that future edit warring would result in a block.
			{{AN3\|b\|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
	* As soon as the protection of Germanic peoples ended, Andrew Lancaster resumed his aggressive editing, entirely rewriting the lead at Germanic peoples. I refrained from any more editing warring, but instead tried to discuss the issues at the talk page. Several editors openly agreed with my concerns. Several other editors have only dared to express their concerns with me privately, as they are afraid of Andrew Lancaster. My attempts to resolve the situation at the talk page were ignored by Andrew Lancaster, who because of my refusal to engage in more editing warring, has exploited the situation to completely rewrite the article.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fernanda Torres}}
	* I significantly improved the article Goths in September 2019, and nominated it for ] in December the same year. On 3 February 2020, ] began reviewing the article, stating that it was in good shape. Almost immediately afterwards, Andrew Lancaster becomes active at Talk:Goths, complaining about the quality of the article. Over the next days he starts making numerous drastic, unsourced and unhelpful edits to the article. He had never edited the article before noticing that i had put it up for for a GA review. This is clear ].

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
	* Andrew Lancaster's strategy of aggressive edit warring and flooding talk pages with incoherent walls of text paid off at Germanic peoples, and inspired by his success he is now utilizing the same disruptive strategy at Goths to cause me frustration. Andrew Lancaster's aggressive editing has already succeeded in driving numerous productive editors away from important articles, and i'm about there myself. This kind of behavior is harmful to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	<br />
	:*What edit war? An extremely dishonest summary by {{ping\|Krakkos}}, who continues to surprise. Krakkos is the main editor. My edits have very detailed edit summaries, and come with lots of attempts to get pre-discussion on the talk page.
	:*I suppose that ''technically'' revert 4 is a revert and maybe 5, But as the edsums show, with 4 I thought the book publication year "errors" of Krakkos would be accepted as straightforward mistakes! And 5 (cn template removal) was ''after a talk page discussion'' which showed there was no sourcing concern . However, it turns out these are not mistakes, and Krakkos is routinely making preferred sources look more recent than they are. Krakkos now wants disruption. I have seen a few cases before in the editing of Krakkos, but the pattern and the insistence did not strike me. As this became clear I did no more reverts after the 1st and started a talk page discussion . Very soon after Krakkos suddenly initiated drama and smokescreens, posting an extremely dishonest explanation on the talk page of an admin . {{ping\|Doug Weller}} I suppose this here is the next step.
	:*As the talk pages of various articles show, Krakkos is desperately doing anything (such as this) to avoid meaningful discussion, and is consistently unable to show an empathy with our policy and norms, with the sources, or other editors. It makes things very messy. This is because Krakkos does not want to talk about things like why these publication years keep getting switched in the same direction, and only for authors Krakkos wants "promoted". How could I have expected Krakkos to say this was not a mistake?
	:*Behind all the patterns in the edits one desire can be defined which is central at least to the recent cases I have contended with, and that is that Krakkos wants no mention of any of the newer more critical scholars such as ] to be used in Misplaced Pages, and if they are to be used, Krakkos wants POV forking and walled gardens within articles and/or between articles, in order to quarantine them away from material based purely on sources with the "good old" theories with nice simple Germanic categories. Krakkos also can not explain how this can fit with our policies.
	:*Further in the background is the whole career of Krakkos as a Wikipedian which mainly involves categorizing people and things by a language family (Slavic warriors, Germanic warriors, Germanic religion, etc.) The problem with the highly respected new criticism in the Germanic subject area is that people like Goffart are saying this way of categorizing has basic methodological problems. Categorising people as Germanic is VERY important to Krakkos!
	:*I think the summary by Krakkos already makes it clear, anyway, that there are lots of things going on, but "edit war" does not quite capture it. --] (]) 23:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	:::*BTW this is not the first time Krakkos has tried to use this forum against me in recent months, and perhaps the past cases should also be looked at. In my opinion there is a pattern of deliberate efforts to make life awkward for other editors, and abuse the system's flexibilities against them. With Krakkos AGF is difficult, but if you manage it, the alternative is that Krakkos has an incredibly incompetent understanding of how most Wikipedians think we should work.--] (]) 23:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
	::::He usually adopts these attrition tactics against those who get in his way, often with success. You got in his way, resisting his attempts to impose his grand ethnic scheme. ] (]) 23:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Rodney Reed}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1267808569\|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\| Wallyfromdilbert}}
			# {{diff2\|1267807858\|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267807213\|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806982\|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806103\|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Previous version reverted to:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267807698\|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267808131\|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"

	'''Diffs of ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:'''		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Removing content negative to the subject.
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942720663
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942799078
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942799691
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942799882

	'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wallyfromdilbert#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			{{AN3\|b\|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rodney_Reed

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267452946\|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			# {{diff2\|1267525585\|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267644988\|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267646582\|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267699885\|diff=1267736737\|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:::This user has been engaging in edit warring against multiple users removing content from a page for months. Just today he did 4 reverts. ] (]) 22:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
			This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The content is a clear ] violation because it is stating allegations as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice. Even if the other issue of whether ] and "public figure" could be interpreted differently, that would require actually engaging in the discussion on the talk page or reopening the discussion at ], which already reached a consensus regarding the use of primary sources. Also, note that the filing editor is continuing to restore this content. – ] (]) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
			: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::I don't see you engaging in any discussion on the talk page. I've posted multiple things there and you've barely responded to any of them. And when you have you have just repeated the same claims. The information is presented as stated in the sources. If you feel the language is not netural, you can change it. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 22:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			*{{AN3\|p}} (by {{u\|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:42, 7 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)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

See ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

Listen.

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Categories: