Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:23, 22 January 2010 edit94.193.135.142 (talk) →User:94.193.135.142 reported by User:Rapido (Result: 24h)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:42, 29 December 2024 edit undoDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators224,460 edits →User:Infinty 0 reported by User:Amigao (Result: ): 24 hour block 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
] <!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 121 |counter = 490
|algo = old(72h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude> }}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
{{Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}
__TOC__
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->


== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned users) ==
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked by ]) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PaleoFile}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Charles Darwin}} <br/>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Anonywiki}}<br/>
Previous version reverted to: <br/>
* 1st revert: <br/>
* 2nd revert: , note promise to edit war on this.<br/>
* 3rd revert: <br/>
* 4th revert: <br/>
* 5th revert: <br/>


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Diff shows warnings at 20:33 and 21:04, 31 December, 2009)<br/>
#
#
#
#


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No 3RR violation) ==


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
'''Page:''' {{article|Steve_Badger}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2005}}


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


] | ] 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:
*Both users have been {{AN3|w}}. ] (]) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Those users and {{userlinks|Mei23448}} seems continuing edit wars on '']'' and '']'' articles.
*:1.
*:2.
*:3.
*:4.
*:5.
*:6.
*:In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.
*:Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) ] (]) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. ] (]) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's ]. ] | ] 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. ] (]) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|ToBeFree}} The problem persists, ] and ] continue their edit war / vandalism on both pages. --] (]) 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you very much for the notification, {{u|Jens Lallensack}}. Both blocked indefinitely, the latter unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. ] (]) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <br />
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Callmehelper}}


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


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


<u>I have made multiple efforts to change only specific pieces of the article to be careful not to remove anything that is properly sourced. User 2005 comes in each time and simply reverts everything back to the way it previously was. Google Groups cannot be used as a source. Poker-Babes.com cannot be used as an external link on poker player profiles it has been deemed as spam on multiple occasions. Nothing about his ownership of the website or his being a professional poker player is sourced. 2005 will not engage in discussion or allow anything to be removed from the article. It is likely a self published autobiographical article by User 2005 or a biography of someone who User 2005 knows very well - thus making the revisions, or any edits to the article, unethical and against the spirit of Misplaced Pages.:</u> <br />


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


I ask that User 2005 be blocked or warned and not permitted to make sweeping reverts to all of my edits on this article (or any other) but to analyze each of them on their merits, as I am addressing different issues with each edit. ] (]) 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:Obviously I did not violate 3RR. In addition to violating the 3RR rule as reported by TonyTheTiger above, user DegenFarang has also done three reversions of the ] article including wildly inapproiate edits including . He has been reverted by three editors today on that article, including me doing so my allowed three times. His statements above are falsehoods, plus for a second time he tries to ] me, this time as a different person! ] needs to be permanetly blocked from editing. ] (]) 01:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
::The other editors did what you should be doing: They addressed specifics edits I made. You are just going in and undoing ALL of my edits. Quite unreasonable when I took the time to make so many of them, in an attempt to improve the article, and to make it easy for you to address each edit on its merits. And your bringing up my '3rr violation' is quite funny. Did you even look at the article? He was paid to write it. And if you are not Steve Badger than you clearly know him very well. You have the same bias TonyTheTiger had. I should be blocked, why, because I have the courage and patience to stand up to biased editors like you and TonyTheTiger? ] (]) 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Result''' - No 3RR violation. ] (]) 06:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31h) ==


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Steve_Badger}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|DegenFarang}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on ]. ] (]) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


:It's me @].
Previous version reverted to:
:'''Clarification by my side ; '''
:Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.
:* ''Disputes details'' ;
:# Firstly , I edit ] check history of that page from to
:#''' process of reverting by others and my responses'''
:** then and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes ] then i thought matter would be solved.
:*But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement and my response of revert and discussion on his talk page ]
:Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there
:Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk ] but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on ]
:So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.
:the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under ] or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.
:so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .
:'''Conclusion'''
:So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.
:Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.
:i left a discussion on ] page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources ].
:I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.
:
:I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.
:Much Regards. ] (]) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{AN3|d}} Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. ] (]) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Angelo Rules}} <br />
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnny test person}}


'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
These are four reverts of this article, in addition to his initial changes to the article... which he then put up for AFD. Apparently unsatisfied with how the '''Keep''' comments started coming in he has blantantly violated three revert... reverting three different editors. He should ahve already been blocked . He has an extensive history of violating polcies like , and . He has recieved numerous for his editing. ] (]) 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
*I am making specific changes to the article (like removing un sourced information and peacock terms) and 2005 is reverting everything I am doing back without regard for my specific edits. You can see my detailed thoughts above. I accept any disciplinary action but I ask anybody who takes it to have a close look at the article in question, 2005's history with it, and 2005's history on Misplaced Pages. There is clearly some self-interested editing going on here, at the least. ] (]) 01:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:*'''Result''' - 31 hours to DegenFarang. I'm aware that this editor argues that he is removing spam, but spam removal is not included among the exceptions to ]. The definition of particular content as spam needs consensus, and ] is a good rule to follow when you see something you think should be removed. DF has made about six reverts here in 24 hours, and it's hard to see that as a good-faith effort to clean up the article, in a way that respects the opinions of the other editors. His gutting of the article while an AfD is running surely doesn't win any prizes for helpful behavior. ] (]) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== Several anonymous IP addresses in the same location reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


'''Page:''' {{article|Donmeh}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|81.213.106.230}}<br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|88.228.233.234}}<br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|85.110.0.135}}<br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|78.166.14.189}}<br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|88.228.235.121}}<br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|88.230.97.193}}<br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|88.230.96.240}}<br>


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


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' ]
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* Edit warring:
* Edit warring:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* Edit warring:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* Edit warring:
* 6th revert:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Information is repeatedly being removed from the article about the ] by a POV-pusher who is attempting to de-emphasize the Donmeh's ties to ]. These IP addresses have also POV-pushed in other articles--according to one post at Talk:Donmeh, "Since December , there's been a series of similar edits from a range of IP addresses at ], ], ] and ]" On ], several other editors have complained about this behavior, and there is consensus that administrator action is needed. The IP addresses seem to be coming from similar locations in Turkey, and are likely to be a single user.
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: It is difficult to warn this User or users because the changes are coming from so many IP addresses.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Grail Movement}}
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
The IP addresses in question do not seem to be participating in the discussion.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ,


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Folawiki}}
<u>Comments:</u> The problem does not seem to be limited to a single IP address, or to the ] article.<br />
*{{AN3|d}} More suited to a request for ], though looking at the article the recent level of disruption is low and thus it'd likely be unwarranted. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 09:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 3 days ) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Baptist}}<br />
# {{diff2|1265465790|02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mark Osgatharp}}
# {{diff2|1265465049|02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265464033|02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265459461|01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1265461000|01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
# {{diff2|1265464521|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* December 2024 */ ] notice"
# {{diff2|1265464576|02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]."
# {{diff2|1265465123|02:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1265464764|02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "{{re|Folawiki}} The whitewashing has to stop. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert (removal of a newly placed OR tag):


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


Cult whitewashing. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Trisha Krishnan}}
] was formally warned by an admininstrator to stop edit warring just the other day. . The {{ph|Baptist|Baptist article page history}} indicates that he continues to edit war. Unfortuantely, he also continiues to make inappropriate comments on ]. In light of the fact that and those edits have largely been disruptive, I think this editor should not be blocked.


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|TheHappiestEditor}}
] (]) 04:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|3 days}} Aside from completely ignoring my prior warnings (], , ) and continuing to misuse undo by edit warring, the editor has also started to dabble in pure disruptive editing by making comments such as and . Further, made at the talk page are generally passive aggressive and would make consensus building difficult at best. The reporting editor would be best advised to read over ] to learn how to deal best with difficult editors, and they should get help from others to assist them, eg use a relevant noticeboard, seek third party help, etc. Good luck. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1265432813|22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
{{Article|Same-sex marriage in California}}. {{3RRV|PeshawarPat}}: Time reported: 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1265165246|13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."


''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' *Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
#
#
#


# <small>(edit summary: "/* 2004 San Francisco marriages */")</small> #
# <small>(edit summary: "/* 2004 San Francisco marriages */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* See also */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 338690166 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* 2004 San Francisco marriages */ It was the law at the time of the licenses, I don't there is anything apparent that he broke the law. Voters ban gay weddings anyway, so the laws have been changed")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 338694136 by ]Are you saying he didn't violate the state law?")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 338698557 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 338705140 by ] (])")</small>


* Diff of warning: # - putting fake sources/infomation
# - putting fake sources/infomation
# - putting fake sources/infomation


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
—]] 06:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
#


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*<s>{{Admin-note}} It would appear that he after receiving his warning. I am thinking we should hold off on taking any action unless he continues to revert war. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)</s> I was looking at (which was the subject of another report since removed by the reporter). ] <sup>]</sup> 06:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Page:''' {{article|Dimitrije Tucović}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|FkpCascais}}


POV pushing/cherry-picking "Malayalam" and edit warring in a lot of articles. Apart from the above listed, the user has been pushing "Malayalam" as one of the languages in which "actor XYZ" has acted 'predominantly' in but in actuality the entries are only a few . The editor has received multiple warnings for being disruptiove and a recent one for from {{u|Krimuk2.0}}. - ] (]) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
As you can check, I am the author of ] on Serbo-croat Misplaced Pages. My intention is to write a good article about ] on English Misplaced Pages. As soon as I started to write, one user constantly removing certain aspect of Tucović's work from the article.


:{{u|TheHappiestEditor}}, please respond to these allegations. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
He did it 3 times in last 24 hours:


{{u|TheHappiestEditor}} has engaged in further edit-warring, with the same "Malayalam" language POV pushing, with {{u|19Arham}} . ] (]) 06:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*
*
*


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
And there is more in the .


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
] didn't wrote a single word in the article, he just stubbornly deleting content. When I asked him to discuss his changes, he answered me: "Please, report me." (see: ]).


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|103.84.130.238}}
I do not want to be engaged in the edit war. I just want him to follow common procedures and not to removing content without prior discussion.--] (]) 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|pe}} ] <small> ]]'''</small> 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Kochi, India<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
# {{diff|oldid=1262480024|diff=1265542339|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gantlet<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}
## {{diff2|1265541681|12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
## {{diff2|1265542339|12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia "
#
#
#
#
#
#
#


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


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Older reverts:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:


Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
'''... and the reverts goes on and on and on....'''
:The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a warning, but was to report it here. - ] (]) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] Sadly, the IP is now doing the exact same thing over at the article ] (]). —&nbsp;] ] 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result:Indefinitely blocked) ==
The same is the case with ]
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Angelo Rules}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnny test person}}
Both the users are aware about the 3RR policy. Infact one of the user (Dewatchdog) placed the warning for the other (Gantlet).
Later the warning was removed by ] :


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Also, both of their userpage seems to possess many baseless claims such as Novato and Ultimate Editor badges. :)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''The users are blocked earlier for edit warring the same article. : ] and ]''' Still the reverts are ongoing since weeks.. !!!
# {{diff2|1265621270|21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265402736|19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265399005|19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265395466|18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1265394604|18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Please block the users and '''semi-protect''' the article. --] (]) 07:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|bb|sixty hours}} I'm not sure why you think the article should be semi-protected though. -- ''']''' 13:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


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


--


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''I asked to semi-protect the article because of the below reasons:'''
The reverts are still going on, even though the editors are blocked.
See the reverts after the block:
* 1st :
* 2nd :
* 3rd :
--
* 1st :
* 2nd :
* 3rd :
--
More reverts are going on.


Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (]) ] (]) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Trock95}} is a sock of ]. Infact, User:Gantlet used this account to award a barnstar himself :
* {{AN3|b| indef}} Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, he admits in the article talk page that he created another account (Trock95) to award barnstar to himself : ""


Thank you, --] (]) 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
*{{AN3|n}} Post disruptive sock reports at ] please. Thank you. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 17:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Automotive industry in China}} <br />
I dont know why admins are not looking into this !! --] (]) 14:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Infinty 0}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|BBC Persian Television}} <br />
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|94.193.135.142}}
#
#
#


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


Previous version reverted to:


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<u>Comments:</u> IP editor has also assumed bad faith, asked ''Are u the Misplaced Pages version of Stalin?'' and SHOUTING in edit summaries. ] (]) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC) </br>
This user continued to even ''after'' a 3RR warning was on the user's talk page. The user does not seem to want to address substantive issues on talk to reach consensus and instead prefers to engage in NPOV, ], ] behavior and ad hominem attacks. - ] (]) 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <small> ]]'''</small> 17:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


:Ironically, the user @] made a substantial change to the article without explanation or consensus (as can be clearly seen from the article edit history) before any useful discussion took place. He had always emphasized that edits should be made based on discussion, but his actions were exactly the opposite. If someone is instigating an edit war, I think it is clear which side started it first. ] (]) 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::Unfortunately they are back reverting and assuming bad faith again. ] (]) 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
::All my edit explanations are in the relevant ]. If any ] is missing in my edits to the article, please feel free to provide diffs. - ] (]) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::2nd revert: ] (]) 12:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:And ad hominem attacks? This is a very serious accusation, and I do hope you have enough evidence to support it, otherwise it is just malicious prosecution and frame-up. All our communications and opinion exchange is clearly visible on the talk page and edit history. ] (]) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
:I was never banned. Please check Article history as Rapido is lying and is the one engaging in an edit war by not providing reasonings for his reverts, nor replying or discussing in the discussion page despite my numerous invitations and concerns raised placed next to my reverts. He has a prejudist attitude against I.P. editors, as he himself has demonstrated through out his history of editing, and calls me, 1 person, "they", and seem to think there is an mob involved. Unless Rapido can reply to my objections in the discussion page, I will take that as a sign of his incompetence to follow wikiepdia guidelines, and commence with reverting and propose a 3RR ban for him. --] (]) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
::'''Update''' - I have fully protected ]. I believe that both Rapido and the IP are edit-warring. They are well-advised to see if they can find compromise language for the two sentences that they keep reverting back and forth. The BBC claims that its signal has been jammed, and that they believe the interference comes from Iran. We can report that they believe those things with no fear of contradiction. Misplaced Pages editors shouldn't need to parachute in themselves to look for the jamming transmitters. Rapido's word "confirmed" is a bit strong unless he can provide a source that comes from outside the BBC. ] (]) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:::The IP editor, WAS banned for 24 hours, however they probably didn't try to go to Misplaced Pages during that period, and were not aware of the ban . EdJohnston, if you checked the source, you would see that Radio Netherlands reports that Eutelsat confirmed the jamming comes from Iran. Nothing to do with the BBC! The above IP editor is continuing assuming bad faith, and personal attacks against me, rather than discussing the edits on the article in question. ] (]) 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hephthalite–Gokturk raids of 614–616}} <br />
:Dear EdJohnston,
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|وقت الصلاة}}
:I see you have looked into issue fairly,
:Please look at my reverts, followed by invitations and requests by Rapido (who in my view started an edit war) to engage in my discussion before continuing his reverts. He continued reverting, whilst refusing to discuss or answer my criticisms, in order to systematically ban me via the 3RR which at the time I wasn't aware of. --] (]) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:The page history clearly shows most reverts by Rapido to be non-annotated despite reverting my annotated reverts calling for an discussion. --] (]) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:Also note, Rapido is using Blogs as citations, despite my numerous requests in the discussion page for him to use the original sources. We cannot ban someone for arrogance, however, Rapido has shown a non-compliance attitude and talk pages, logs and discussion show background collaboration between Rapido, and others for collective POV editing and banning of an IP user and I also suspect he is using multiple accounts. --] (]) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
:Alot of the reverts by Rapido were unjustified, tagged as "minor edits", despite my call for discussion clearly showing systematic bullying by some editors of the BBC Persian Television article. --] (]) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Bonus ]/]; . Also very high likelihood of sock/meatpuppetry, I'll file an SPI later just to be sure its not the former. --] (]) 18:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 18:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:* Also '''ECP protected''' (I edit-conflicted with Bbb23 here) I was going to block the editor concerned, but instead I have reverted their latest edits and ECPd the article; they can discuss their edits on the talk page rather than edit-warring when they are unblocked. ] 18:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:Big thanks to you both! ] (]) 21:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
:Also, on Rapido's discussion page, despite him clearing it regularly, within this month, another user, Jeff300 accussed him of an edit war: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Rapido&diff=338579046&oldid=337889489


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Justice}} <br />
:This user, Rapido, seems to have a long history of edit wars, and I suggest a look at his history should be made and wikipedia logs, and past criticisms should be taken into account. --] (]) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Remsense}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::Well I gave explanations of the reverts in the edit summaries and on the article talk page. The "blog" is actually part of Radio Netherlands, and as such the writers are professionals working for a news organisation. Just because the website is in "blog" format, does not make it an unreliable source. As for ''logs and discussion show background collaboration between Rapido, and others''... originally they said ''Rapido, Ash and others'' before they corrected themselves, and had a scathing attack on ] (including accusing Ash of ''lying''). Now I would love to see this evidence implicating Ash... who has absolutely nothing to do with this ] matter, and who I do not know and have never heard of. Once again, if you look above, and elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, more assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are broadcast by the IP user about me. ] (]) 18:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:The Ash situation was an mistake as I assumed to bottom report here was continuance of ours. We need urget mediation, this is becoming to personal when the matter at hand is the content of BBC Persian Television article, I cannot grow white hairs over an arrogant user. EdJohnston has already said both me and Rapido have engaged in an edit war, and I would like matter sorted out as soon as possible. I placed an (who?) in the Article to try to encourage Rapido to understand my criticism, im not sure what is wrong with his cognition of my criticisms or his refusal to reply in the discussion page, because they bare more logic than anything else. I hope to see a resolve v. soon on the issue, and would like the editor or admin viewing this case, to decide which version of the edits were most accurate, NPOV and representative of an encyclopedia. --] (]) 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
#
::Once again, more personal attacks from the above IP editor. ] (]) 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
#
:Where? I'm tired of your lying, and exagerrations. Don't try to steer this from an edit war into a personal war. Stick to the topic, something which i think will help your future editing. Would you like it if I suddenly start saying "Again, a personal attack from Rapido"? when no attack is made? --] (]) 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
#
#


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


'''Page:''' {{article|First Balkan War}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Avidius}}


<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert: <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> User is warring with the ] function.--] (]) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} and 31h for another editor with prior EW block history. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 08:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Two editors warned) ==


'''Page:''' {{article|Mestizo}} <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Guilty as charged. None of my justifications matter, since 3RR doesn't care that IPs can just slip into the night instead of actually engaging in discussion on talk, leaving a highly visible article in a broken state for hours because my hands are tied to fix it. Can't ask anyone else to fix it because that's canvassing. I've been given a lot of wiggle room here over the past couple months, so if this earns me a week then so be it. It's extremely frustrating trying to protect the most important articles on the site, so maybe after this I should just give up. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|C.Kent87}} and {{userlinks|Dropmeoff}}


:{{reply to|Remsense}} Your accusation that I left {{tqi|a highly visible article in a broken state for hours}} is a completely baseless ] and should lengthen your block. Any administrator can read the article's diffs and confirm that at no point did I do such a thing. You're the one who deleted well-referenced material. ] (]) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> These users are in a dangerous edit war , including personal attacks and incivility eloquent. . ] (]) 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:As a related side note, it does not seem that the IP editor really cares to follow ] in this instance. - ] (]) 00:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Result''' - Both parties broke ], but they stopped reverting after being warned by ]. If either one continues to revert without waiting for a Talk page consensus, they are likely to be blocked. ] (]) 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


Add to the above the following ] by Remsense on the article's talk page: . ] (]) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31h) ==


:Additionally, when I Remsense with the appropriate user warning for this personal attack, they {{tqi|get the hell off my page}}. This is a clear violation of ]. Add it to the list. ] (]) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{article|First Balkan War}} <br />
::I would like to back up the complaint against Remsense here, as he also recently failed to assume good faith in edits I posted and attacked me personally as an editor. He then followed me and deleted another edit I had posted on an unrelated page afterward after I questioned his conduct on his talk page (which he then deleted.) I question whether his temperament is suitable to be a moderator on Misplaced Pages.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Factuarius}}
::] (]) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There is no such thing as a moderator on Misplaced Pages, Remsense is a Normal Editor like you and not an Admin Either. ] (]) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you. I stand by my comments on his temperament and conduct regardless.
::::] (]) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Another way of stating this would be to say that you didn't follow the date format rules (why doesn't really matter), used misleading/uninformative edit summaries experienced editors have seen countless times before with BCE->BC and CE->AD transforms like 'Minor clean up' and 'Minor grammar cleanup', and Remsense left you an informative message to help you avoid repeating these kinds of errors. ] (]) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Crunchyroll}} <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|72.134.38.53}}
* 1st revert: (Several edits leading to the same version)
* 2nd revert: (Same as above)
* 3rd revert: (Same as above)
* 4th revert: (Practically the same version)
*5th revert: (Full revert)
*6th revert: (Almost the same)
*7th revert: (Full revert)


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


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


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


<u>Comments:</u> ] has displayed a very aggressive attitude in the dispute (including shouting in edit summaries), often resorting to personal attacks and unfounded accusations. <br />


<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
] (]) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:Just to note that ] is just as guilty of edit-warring on that article, if not more, and while Factuarius has cased edit-warring and joined the discussion, Avidius is still edit-warring. ] (]) 20:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
::Avidius' actions do not excuse the reverts of Factuarius and Factuarius also started before him, provoking him to an extent.
] (]) 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
<br>Note: I have shown the differences between two edits of the user (showing his complete or nearly complete revert) instead of the difference between his and the edits of another user. ] (]) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:::There is no 3RR violation because each revert is to a different version and to different parts of the article. However, in the interest of the general peace I will refrain from further reverts from now on and I will focus even more on the discussion. --] (]) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Actually every one of these edits has completely or almost completely removed the contribution of another editor, on the same page, within 24 hours. See the definition for a 3RVT rule ]. ] (]) 21:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Kostja:You know very well that actually is the opposite: you, ], ] and ] reverted everything I did these days but you managed only Avidius to break the 3RR (7rv). Every one can see that in the edit log. I always refrained from breaking 3RR which is the reason the article this very moment is in the condition you wanted three days now. You were four I was alone and at the end of each day it was your version in the article. Everyone can see that. --] (]) 21:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:Today Gligan didn't edit the page at all and Laveol had only two edits. So stop imagining some kind of cabal acting against you because it doesn't exist. ] (]) 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
::Which is the possible reason Avidius did today a total of 13 reverts while yesterday and the day before had a limited participation in reverts. --] (]) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Because so many people have been revert warring on this article (Avindus ]...), perhaps the article should be protected instead of blocking people so as to allow discussions.--] (]) 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:I agree and have made a request for full page protection. ] (]) 21:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Below is the text I post in the morning to the talk page of the article that describe the situation the 4 Bulgarian editors created the last two days:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The IP has repeatedly removed languages ​​within the infobox website on Crunchyroll's page explicitly citing that the streaming service only has 14 languages ​​available according to its official website; specifically it has English, German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, Turkish, Russian, Japanese, Arabic and Hindi when in reality there are 20 the number of anime series and movies available in its complete catalog with audio original Japanese and with subtitles, only that Sony, the owner of this platform or Crunchyroll itself, have not officially made the announcement of the possibility of it expanding to more territories, more countries and more languages ​​without waiting for this to happen next. ] (]) 00:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a problem with an ongoing tag-teaming edit war here: Specifically, four very well known for their extreme pro Bulgarian activity in the past users ], ] ] and ] by using either falsified references or just “don't like it policies” and edit warring in a series of articles trying to impose a clearly pro-Bulgarian POV or just to remove any to the contrary edits there. For most of the other editors, this was just a usual problem and they were trying to live with it, but recently they created an unbearable climate here, using massive edit war, false accusations and common policies in order to remove anything they don't like from the article. I believe someone must take action here before the situation goes out of hand. Below are their last actions and a detailed explanation of my position that I as the only editor not compromising with their activity became a target of their attacks and malicious treatment. These are their last actions:

'''User Gligan''' falsely accused me both in the talk page and in his edit summary for being hypocritical because according to him I removed the sentence of an author named Hall about “the significance of the Thracian front for that war”. Accordingly, he reverted the deletion of those two sentences with their refs. But as his edit was a blatant revert of my 2:42 edit he must surely have noticed that I didn't remove them, I only transferred them from the end of the chapter to the very start of that chapter, using the original expression of the source, and as the original author also had them (the first one in the page 45 as the first sentence in his "Western theatre" chapter and the second one in page 22 as the first sentence in his "Thracian" chapter) since both of those sentences are more of generalities about those fronts and thus their position is more appropriate in the lede of the chapter. Accordingly, since he surely knew from my edit summary that I didn't remove them, it is obvious that he purposely lied about the removing just to rv and thus edit warred just to edit warring without any other logical reason.

'''User Gligan''', also, purposely lied about the number of the Bulgarian population in the Ottoman held Macedonia, in being a majority both in talk and in his edit summary. In the talk page he linked Erickson's page book 41 starting a talk chapter with the title “...and Hypocrisy”. According to him, the table of the populations in that page clearly indicates that the Bulgarian population was a majority in Macedonia. But he clearly lied because this very table was actually saying exactly the opposite, indicating that the Bulgarians were not a majority both in the total population figures as well as in every single province of the Macedonia area. Despite that, he reverted my 15:11 edit wherein I had mentioned that “the Bulgarian population was not a majority in Macedonia” by writing in his edit summary “back to NPOV version; you don't OWN the article”. Since it was he himself who introduced the table in the discussion it is sure that he had noticed that what the table said actually was the opposite of what he claimed, but he chose to lie just as an excuse to revert my edit, by falsifying the reference.

'''User Kostja''' reverted my edit about the number of the Serbian army that participated in the siege of Adrianople, saying in his edit summary that “The number of troops is important”. Since his edit was a blatant revert of my edit of 14:32 he was aware that the reason of my edit was that the number of those troops was already mentioned just some lines before, as I had explained in my edit summary, and thus it was just an unnecessary repetition. Accordingly, he purposely chose to ignore the obvious logic that we cannot repeat a number in every line here and there and thus his edit was an edit warring just for edit warring without any other logical reason. User Kostja also helped Laveol and Gligan to escape breaking the 3RR in their POV-pushing effort in falsifying Erickson's data table about the Bulgarian population in Ottoman-held Macedonia by reverting two times the article's sentence saying the opposite although by being active in the discussion (where the link of that table had been added) he had obviously noticed that the Gligan's claims were just a falsification of the mentioned table. He also helped User:Avidius in removing the sentence "to win for Bulgaria territory the acquisition of which had never been foresee by their mutual treaty" although all the paragraph was fully referenced and although the need of the addition of this sentence had been fully explained to my edit summary after Avidius' revert.

'''User Avidius''' reverted twice a sentence although it was fully referenced, and proceeded to Kostja revert in the totally unnecessary repeating about the Serbian forces that took part in the Adrianople siege although it was mentioned some lines before and thus he also reverted my edits just for reverting, without any logical reason and without any word of explanation in his summary (13:35). He also reverted other material although fully referenced, with brief summaries like “not true” or “far from a fact” while he gave no explanations about these reverts in the talk page.

'''User Laveol''' put a POV flag in the article without opening any discussion in the talk page before, and impressively enough, after that, made a series of 9 edits with the last of them starting in his summary with the words “I don't like..” which is evident of his general attitude. User Laveol has a long standing mania in putting flags without any discussion in articles where their contents are not enough pro-Bulgarian (sometimes as much as five) causing problems in many articles in the past. He removed a map from the article using as a justification the date of the map, (1877) although just days before he participated with User Kostja, User Gligan and User Todor Bozhinov in an intensive edit war in the ] article for removing that same map despite the fact that in that case, this map was barely one year old at the time that state was created. Consequently I found his reasoning for the removal of the map in the current article not honest and obviously hypocritical and his general activity obviously disruptive.

From the above it is clear that all four Bulgarian editors worked in common trying to harass any possibility of editing the article with material contrary to their POV, by lying, falsifying references, removing referenced material and using hypocritical excuses, or no excuses at all and maliciously using a series of reverts to technically avoid breaking the 3RR in order to push their POV. Accordingly it is also necessary to examine the case of their last massive edits as a possible tag-teaming activity. --] (]) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

:Given the article is a general battleground, I would agree with Ptolion that perhaps page-protection is the best way to go. ] (]) 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

::This article requires an order and cohesion in the words and deeds, this badly written, and references harmonizes not what the text means or seeks to explain. ] (]) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Agree with Ptolion, Athenean & Kostja. Better to protect as a push for more discussion, mainly upon the sources. Although I am afraid that the discussion will also die. But even that is better than the current situation, it will help in relaxing the spirits. --] (]) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} Clearly edit warred, regardless of the reasoning it's unacceptable disruption. For someone with a past block for edit warring they should have been quick to stop and turn to the talk pages and the guidance at ] rather than misuse undo. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 08:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|c}} As for protection, It'd be best if you all could use the colloborative editing shown above on the article's talk page to sort out your disputes '''''before''''' making live edits to the article. That would negate the need for lockdown, and make for a healthier editing relationship generally. I'd be willing to unblock both editors if they both agree on their talk page to use talk page for discussion rather than edit war. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 08:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jerzeykydd}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

] was made aware that removing a dispute template is a violation, but did so anyway.
*{{AN3|s}} Disruption by editor has seemed to cease since the report. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 08:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Daniel S. Razón}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shannon Rose}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

Shannon Rose has a history of for edit warring, which he is repeating here in the Razon article. He is also resorting to personal attacks by implying I'm a sock and have involvement with a cult, and canvassing admins and other users from the AfD with a very biased message, as ]. ] (]) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:Also of note: Shannon refuses to assume good faith with the other editors, amid efforts to provide good faith to him as seen in the ] discussion in the article's talk page. --] (]) 23:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

Hi, this cannot be 3RR. The is not a reversion to the and the purpose of the edits is to prevent two editors from dumping questionable statements and sources on a controversial article and encourage a discussion before any major change takes place. You see, all articles linked to the ] sect (including ], ], ], etc.) had a long history of socks and meat puppets who regularly come here and mess things up with all sorts of unsourced edits and disruptions with the sole aim of obliterating duly-sourced negative information. This is a very notorious cult in the Philippines with it's same-sex rapist leader presently hiding in another country to escape the law. This reputation is mirrored by the actions of its members here in WP. '''As of date, there has been no one who edited in favor of the sect who did not turn out to be a puppeteer and became perma-blocked in the end.''' Please consider the following evidences: ], ], and ]. Given these repeated experiences, it has now become impossible to assume good faith on anyone, especially an anon, who only comes here to edit and whitewash a single article. This is not as simple as the anon editor wants you to believe. This article is, after all, about a leader of an extremely fanatical religious group, whose followers have a long history of '''very bad behaviour''' in WP. – <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" color="blue" size="5">Shannon Rose</font> <sup>]</sup> 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:The 3RR report has been closed, but I suggest that Shannon Rose file at ] for any socking issues. Reverting ''people who you believe are probably socks'' is not one of the exceptions listed in the ] policy. Your harsh negative comments about other editors may cause people to be less sympathetic to your position than they otherwise would be. ] (]) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
::I never said that I made the above edits because I believe that they are probably socks. Howard, for one, is most definitely not a sock. He got involved in the article as a spill of his pro-keep position at the ]. The only trouble is that the anon, who is most definitely a follower of the subject, took advantage of the heat of the situation and found an ally in Howard (but I don't know how long it will last as this Howard is a brilliant guy and would surely see thru the anon's real agenda sooner or later). Howard is, just like myself, a very passionate editor. He also wants to see his own people (Filipinos) represented in the articles. I have already instigated a number of ]s, if you would only check the links I gave above. All checkusers turned-out to be positive and were eventually perma-blocked. In my experience, linking ] by way of checkuser is a very bad idea, due to the fact that the previously perma-blocked users, all of them, made their last edits many months ago. Such a check is most likely to come out stale. Thank you for your suggestions. Well noted! – 22:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Creation according to Genesis}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Nefariousski}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Several other editors are involved in this edit war, I warned them earlier but User:Nefariousski then went over 3 reverts by my count. I made one content comment on the talk page (no recent edits to the article), otherwise I might have acted myself on this.--] (]) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that my edits were merely trying to keep the article in tact in it's current state while a discussion which lead to an RFC came about regarding whether to change the term ] or not. Maintaining the intregity of an article in its current state while such a debate is going on is critical to reaching concensus amid controversy. Two of those edits listed were against an IP editor who was subsequently blocked for 24 hours for disruptive edits. And I'd like to invite you to take a quick look at the comments by ] on talk page for the article that show clear intent to edit prior to reaching consensus and questionable ].

The text of the 3RR warning clearly states "you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." My reverts and edits were solely aimed at preventing users from making changes until consensus was reached. ] (]) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:I would note that the edit warring has stopped, however I would like to see some sign that User:Nefariousski understands that his behavior is unacceptable under 3RR, which the above comment suggests he does not.--] (]) 22:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
'''Result''' - Xavexgoem has protected the article for three days. I am glad to note per ] that Nefariousski has agreed not to revert the controversial part of this article until consensus is reached. The current ] on the article's Talk page seems like a good idea. All editors working on that article are urged to join that discussion and abide by the result. ] (]) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Bill Moyers}}. {{3RRV|Drrll}}: Time reported: 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''
# <small>(edit summary: "Criticism")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 338958738 by ] (])Doesn't rely just on columnist--see refs;what BLP problems?")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 338962255 by ] (])See talk")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 338982387 by ] (])See talk")</small>

—] <small>(])</small> 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Drrll was blocked for 48 hours two days ago for violating 3RR on a different article. His first edit on this article restored the text of a deleted section called "Hypocrisy on the influence of the wealthy" by splitting the same sentences between two new sections called "Hypocrisy on the Influence of Money in Politics" and "Profiting from Public Broadcasting". The rest are reverts of removal of this and other problematic material by User:Ravel and myself. ] <small>(])</small> 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:Nice try. As you well know, I didn't simply "split the same sentence between two new sections." I rewrote some of the material in the original edit, added additional material, and added a new reference to support it. Though you may not like it, I've included the original edit and the newer edit below. As you can see, it is not a revert:

::Original edit:
:::===Hypocrisy on the influence of the wealthy===
:::Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of the wealthy, he himself is a wealthy individual who exerts influence on the public policy debate.<ref name="PBSTelevangelist"></ref> Moyers receives a salary as president of the ] ($200,000 as of 1999), receives earnings from his production company, Public Affairs Television, makes money from speeches, and receives considerable royalties from books and videos related to various PBS programs. Many of these programs received direct and indirect taxpayer funding, just as his production company does.<ref name="MoyersScaife">{{cite web
:::| last =Bozell
:::| first =L. Brent
:::| title =Bill Moyers, Scaife of the Left?
:::| publisher =Creators Syndicate
:::| date =1999-10-14
:::| url =http://www.mediaresearch.org/bozellcolumns/newscolumn/1999/col19991014.asp
:::| accessdate = 2010-01-17}}</ref>

::More recent edit:
:::===Hypocrisy on the Influence of Money in Politics===
:::Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of money in American politics, he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups, opinion publications, and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy. Moyers hands out these funds as president of the endowed ].<ref name="Moyers3Roles">{{cite news
:::| last =Greve
:::| first =Frank
:::| title =Moyers' 3 Roles Raise Questions Journalist, Foundation Head, Campaign-Finance Reform Advocate
:::| publisher =The Philadelphia Inquirer
:::| date =1999-10-09
:::| accessdate = 2010-01-20}}</ref>
:::===Profiting from Public Broadcasting===
:::Moyers receives earnings from his production company, Public Affairs Television, makes money from speeches, and receives considerable royalties from books and videos related to various PBS programs (he also receives a salary as president of the ] ). Many of these PBS programs received direct and indirect taxpayer funding, just as his production company receives indirect taxpayer funding for its production of PBS programs (in the past it received direct taxpayer funding from CPB).<ref name="PBSTelevangelist"></ref>
:::<ref name="MoyersScaife">{{cite web
:::| last =Bozell
:::| first =L. Brent
:::| title =Bill Moyers, Scaife of the Left?
:::| publisher =Creators Syndicate
:::| date =1999-10-14
:::| url =http://www.mediaresearch.org/bozellcolumns/newscolumn/1999/col19991014.asp
:::| accessdate = 2010-01-17}}</ref> --] (]) 20:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


You changed the sentence "Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of the wealthy, he himself is a wealthy individual who exerts influence on the public policy debate" to "Though Moyers regularly complains about the influence of money he distributes significant amounts of money to political advocacy groups, opinion publications, and news organizations for the purpose of influencing public policy". Beyond that the text is identical. ] <small>(])</small> 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:As anyone can plainly see above, the text is not "identical".--] (]) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:: Is that sourced somewhere? Otherwise it seems like a big ol' axe-to-grind dose of ] in either form. ] (]) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:::It is sourced. See the 3 references above.--] (]) 21:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:'''Result''' - 48 hours for 3RR violation. Drrll's 11:52 edit is also a ] since it restores the 'Hypocrisy' heading that was removed by others. (''"..reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part."'') That makes four reverts altogether. ] (]) 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 4 days) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Coral Bay}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This user has serious ] issues, constantly reverting to their perferred version, usually claiming some variant of ] as a rationale. Has started mislabeling others contributions as when others tried to correct them. ] (]) 21:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|4 days}} ] <small> ]]'''</small> 09:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Same-sex marriage in California}}, {{article|Same-sex marriage}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|PeshawarPat}}

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


{{article|Same-sex marriage in California}}

Previous version reverted to:

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


{{article|Same-sex marriage}}

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, editor previously warned.

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This editor was just blocked for edit warring on the ] article for repeatedly adding a link to the ] without consensus. Upon returning from his block tonight, he immediately returned to readd the link to the page, as well as several other pages. He's been reverted, and has reverted again. ] (]) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

'''Update:''' The user is also now at 3RR for the same link on ], ], and 2RR on ] (where his first edit was to undo his prior reversion he made to try and avoid his previous 3RR block). He has finally begun to comment on talk pages, but hasn't stopped edit warring. ] (]) 05:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

: Actually, if you read the first paragraph of ] you will see same sex marriage is listed and is very relevant to the article. I feel that some editors have some kind of protectionism of the SSM pages, and do not welcome negative SSM aspects of the issue. TO label it vandalism is totally uncalled for. ] (]) 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
::It is stated quite clearly that ''gay agenda'', on the relevant page, is an anti-homosexual term that is used by others as derogatory. This is a POV term, and it is POV to place it on this article. Do not add it again.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 04:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It very well could be derogatory, but is commonly used and was coined for a reason. SSM is a major goal of the gay agenda, and the editors of all these SSM pages don't like the notion of it. In fact, I would argue that it is POV not to have it.
It is no secret that there are many gays and sypathizers on these pages. ] (]) 04:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the proper venue to discuss the term. Use article talk pages. ] (]) 04:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:How would you like it if I went around adding ] to marriage articles?— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:{{ec}}Like it or not, ''agenda'' is a POV term used to push a specific POV; in this case, it pushes the views that a group of people all have an axe to grind/agenda. Like it or not, the term ''is derogatory'', and it has '''no place in the article''' as it ''clearly violates ].— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
'''This is not the proper venue to discuss the term. Use article talk pages.''' ] (]) 05:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:I heard you the first time, stop repeating yourself like I can't read.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 05:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

{{ec}}The goal of this editor to insert this term into this article has spilled over into other articles. I wish someone would do something. They were blocked for this before, and right off the bat they continue where they left off. Methinks they need another block.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SO now you are denying the actual existance of the gay agenda? It would be like not including one of the "pillars of Islam" because someone decided they didn't like that particular pillar brought up. This is similar to how the whole discussion is called "same-sex" versus homosexual or gay, as it has a very vanilla resonance. If the term is so POV, why is there a decent sized article on it, directly referencing SSM on it? ] (]) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:That is your OPINION. There is no ''gay agenda''.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 05:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the 60's, they just wanted to be able to have a bar to go to, and not be arrested. In the 70's, to dress up in drag. 80's/90's, civil unions and domestic partners. Now- "marriage". Tell me that is not an agenda? BTW, I support all those rights up to marriage. Also, for you to say there is not an agenda is POV. ] (]) 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And it is your opinion that it DOESN'T exist!!!! If it doesn't exist, why the article? You just don't like it as it shine a bad like on SSM- and just that a bad light- not derogatory, not POV. Just a bad light <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Peshawar. You are missing the point entirely. This is not the forum to debate whether or not your edits are valid. Your name is here because you are not discussing your edits to gain consensus and/or ignoring the obvious consensus among other editors that disagrees with you. This is against Misplaced Pages policy. You need to stop. And, for that matter, I wholly support <s>another "break"</s> consideration of an indefinite ban for this editor after this recent fiasco. I submitted him to 3RR maybe 2 days ago for the exact same issue and he apparently has learned nothing from this. Viewing his contributions, posts on talk pages, etc., it is clear this editor is here for no purpose but to push his POV without any regard for consensus. Perhaps this is overly harsh (I have a feeling someone may say it is) but the editor is nothing if not consistent. ]] 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:No, it is not my ''opinion'' that it exists. It doesn't exist, period. The article? That's on the POV ''term'' used by opposition. Not the ''existence of any such agenda''. Get your facts straight.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 06:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

:: PeshawarPat, sure there exists an agenda, and the only thing on that agenda is equal rights. Why shouldn't someone be able to go to a bar and not get arrested, why shouldn't someone dress up how they want, and what do drag queens and SSM have in common? You're just trolling and vandalizing every article, you're the one with an agenda. Perhaps if you put less emotion into your edits and more intellectual thinking you'd see you aren't always right. -- ] (]) 06:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Notice ===
This has, in a way, moved to ANI at . Thank you all for your time.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PeshawarPat warned ]. Edits and reversions have ceased for now. Resumption of the same activity should result in swift action if the editor doesn't try to achieve consensus first. ] (]) 08:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

=== Request ===
Given this editor's past behavior, which led to their first block, and their recent behavior right after the block, I hereby request that this discussion remain open for a bit, in case the editor returns to edit warring 24 hours after this report.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 08:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:I will still be watching 24 hours from now, and 24 hours after that too, but I've changed the header to show "still open". If a bot nukes it, add it back please. ] (]) 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}} Warned and closed for now due to end of disruption. Should the editor resume their disruption a new report should be filed here, or simply report the renewed disruption to an admin who's aware of the situation (but otherwise uninvolved) for blocking and/or other measures. ] <small> ]]'''</small> 09:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 0oToddo0 blocked 48 hours, Nemonoman for 24.) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Christian Conventions}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|0oToddo0}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th :
* 6th:
* 7th:
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

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

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
I regret to say that I no longer believe that this editor is acting in good faith, but has moved from disruption to vandalism to get attention. Although he is exercised that the article is full lies, it is hard to determine what he wants changed.
::''The need for the dispute tag is real because I know for myself, and the editor who posted in the "Irvine not the founder" section before me also found out for himself that, unless there is a tag alerting to a dispute, no one bothers to discuss anything. ''
--] (]) 12:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Nemonoman, as I have mentioned to you, all I have done is added a disputed tag, because of a dispute that is current on the talk page, which is being contributed to by Astynax, of whom you tried to discourage from participating in the dispute, because of your apparent desire to block all efforts to discuss the article. I have no intention to modify the article content until we come to some sort of agreement on the talk page. Please join me there where I have made it quite clear what I am disputing regarding the article. Kind regards, ] (]) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

00todd00: Your questions have been asked and answered. Twice. You say you continue to add the dispute tag to get attention to numerous flaws in the article beyond these, and have not mentioned one.--] (]) 13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bothblocked|24/48 hours}} ] (]) 14:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Human Rights Foundation}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Paratrooper73}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Gotta love the edit summary on the 4th revert. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:Qui! ] <small> ]]'''</small> 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <small> ]]'''</small> 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

==] reported by <small>] | ]</small> (Result: )==
*] violation on
{{Article|Smithers, British Columbia}}. {{3RRV|Stuntology}}: Time reported: 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

# <small>(edit summary: "/* Demographics */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Miscellaneous */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Demographics */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Demographics */ I have removed fraudulent information from the encyclopedia.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Demographics */ Setting things straight.")</small>

* Diff of warning:

<u>Comments:</u> <br />Note that ] may be a sock puppet of a recently blocked user ]

—<small>] | ]</small> 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Chris Sarra}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|94.193.23.189}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
* Note that three different editors have had their contributions reverted by this anonymous IP account.—] (]) 10:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

'''Page:''' {{article|List of rulers of Bosnia}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Surtsicna}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

<u>Comments:</u> He is hasty, changis posts quickly, same post 5 times per minute creating edit conflicts, nominates new pages for deletion 10 minutes after they were up, calls names (liar, idiot,e tc.), is clueless about history (mixes primary and secondary/tertiary historical sources), will not listen to any reason, solicits outside users with same nationalist Serb agenda, wants to control all pages that talk about Bosnia history, totally not willing to coopearate, dodges issues of conflict between his-chosen references and Wiki pages on Ottoman conquest (dates) based on Ottoman military records (primary historic documents), and so on.<br />

] (]) 19:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:42, 29 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    User:PaleoFile reported by User:Bowler the Carmine (Result: Warned users)

    Page: Giganotosaurus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: PaleoFile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead

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

    Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Callmehelper reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: Declined)

    Page: Ambedkar Jayanti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Callmehelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:20, 26 December 2024
    2. 17:41, 24 December 2024
    3. 00:25, 22 December 2024
    4. 17:57, 21 December 2024



    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:
    Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on B. R. Ambedkar. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's me @Callmehelper.
    Clarification by my side ;
    Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.
    • Disputes details ;
    1. Firstly , I edit Ambedkar Jayanti check history of that page from here to final version
    2. process of reverting by others and my responses
    • But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement see and my response of revert here and discussion on his talk page here
    Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there see
    Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk here but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Request_for_Administrator Review_of_Recent_Edits_on_Dr. B.R._Ambedkar's_Page
    So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.
    the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under WP:UNDUE or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.
    so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .
    Conclusion
    So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.
    Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.
    i left a discussion on Ambedkar Jayanti page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources look.
    I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.
    I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.
    Much Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Declined Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Johnny test person reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Page: Angelo Rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Johnny test person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:34, December 26, 2024
    2. 18:40, December 26, 2024
    3. 19:05, December 26, 2024
    4. 19:31, December 26, 2024


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1265395592

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Aoidh#Angelo Rules and Talk:Angelo Rules#Unsourced character biography section

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1265406607

    Comments:
    Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - Aoidh (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Folawiki reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Grail Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision 1265465515 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
    2. 02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265464633 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
    3. 02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265460975 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
    4. 01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240888069 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Grail Movement."
    2. 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */ WP:FTN notice"
    3. 02:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Grail Movement."
    4. 02:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Grail Movement."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "@Folawiki: The whitewashing has to stop. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"

    Comments:

    Cult whitewashing. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:TheHappiestEditor reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

    Page: Trisha Krishnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265170057 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
    2. 13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."
    • Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
    1. - putting fake sources/infomation
    2. - putting fake sources/infomation
    3. - putting fake sources/infomation

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    POV pushing/cherry-picking "Malayalam" and edit warring in a lot of articles. Apart from the above listed, the user has been pushing "Malayalam" as one of the languages in which "actor XYZ" has acted 'predominantly' in but in actuality the entries are only a few . The editor has received multiple warnings for being disruptiove and a recent one for edit-warring from Krimuk2.0. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    TheHappiestEditor, please respond to these allegations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    TheHappiestEditor has engaged in further edit-warring, with the same "Malayalam" language POV pushing, with 19Arham here here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:103.84.130.238 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Hariprasad Chaurasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 103.84.130.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
      1. 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262480024 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
      2. 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC) ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia "

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about WP:NCIN and MOS:HON in edit summaries and warnings Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a level 4 warning, but was asked to report it here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Johnny test person reported by User:ToBeFree (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Angelo Rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Johnny test person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265440086 by ToBeFree (talk)"
    2. 19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265401281 by Codename AD (talk)"
    3. 19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395978 by Codename AD (talk)"
    4. 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265395008 by Aoidh (talk)"
    5. 18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265382744 by Aoidh (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (Special:Diff/1265613452) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Infinty 0 reported by User:Amigao (Result: Blocked 24h)

    Page: Automotive industry in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Infinty 0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 1
    2. 2
    3. 3
    4. 4



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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Automotive_industry_in_China#EU_technology_transfer_demand

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

    Comments:
    This user continued to revert even after a 3RR warning was provided on the user's talk page. The user does not seem to want to address substantive issues on talk to reach consensus and instead prefers to engage in NPOV, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and ad hominem attacks. - Amigao (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Ironically, the user @Amigao made a substantial change to the article without explanation or consensus (as can be clearly seen from the article edit history) before any useful discussion took place. He had always emphasized that edits should be made based on discussion, but his actions were exactly the opposite. If someone is instigating an edit war, I think it is clear which side started it first. Infinty 0 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    All my edit explanations are in the relevant WP:ES. If any WP:ES is missing in my edits to the article, please feel free to provide diffs. - Amigao (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    And ad hominem attacks? This is a very serious accusation, and I do hope you have enough evidence to support it, otherwise it is just malicious prosecution and frame-up. All our communications and opinion exchange is clearly visible on the talk page and edit history. Infinty 0 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:وقت الصلاة reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Hephthalite–Gokturk raids of 614–616 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: وقت الصلاة (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Comments:

    Bonus WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS; You may hate Turkish people.. If you Look the userpage of "HistoryofIran" you can clearly see she is obsessed with turkish people.. Also very high likelihood of sock/meatpuppetry, I'll file an SPI later just to be sure its not the former. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:Remsense reported by User:2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (Result: )

    Page: Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments: Guilty as charged. None of my justifications matter, since 3RR doesn't care that IPs can just slip into the night instead of actually engaging in discussion on talk, leaving a highly visible article in a broken state for hours because my hands are tied to fix it. Can't ask anyone else to fix it because that's canvassing. I've been given a lot of wiggle room here over the past couple months, so if this earns me a week then so be it. It's extremely frustrating trying to protect the most important articles on the site, so maybe after this I should just give up. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Remsense: Your accusation that I left a highly visible article in a broken state for hours is a completely baseless attack and should lengthen your block. Any administrator can read the article's diffs and confirm that at no point did I do such a thing. You're the one who deleted well-referenced material. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    As a related side note, it does not seem that the IP editor really cares to follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in this instance. - Amigao (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Add to the above the following personal attack by Remsense on the article's talk page: . 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Additionally, when I notified Remsense with the appropriate user warning for this personal attack, they replied with get the hell off my page. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Add it to the list. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would like to back up the complaint against Remsense here, as he also recently failed to assume good faith in edits I posted and attacked me personally as an editor. He then followed me and deleted another edit I had posted on an unrelated page afterward after I questioned his conduct on his talk page (which he then deleted.) I question whether his temperament is suitable to be a moderator on Misplaced Pages.
    MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is no such thing as a moderator on Misplaced Pages, Remsense is a Normal Editor like you and not an Admin Either. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. I stand by my comments on his temperament and conduct regardless.
    MrJ567 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Another way of stating this would be to say that you didn't follow the date format rules (why doesn't really matter), used misleading/uninformative edit summaries experienced editors have seen countless times before with BCE->BC and CE->AD transforms like 'Minor clean up' and 'Minor grammar cleanup', and Remsense left you an informative message to help you avoid repeating these kinds of errors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:72.134.38.53 reported by User:190.167.0.99 (Result: )

    Page: Crunchyroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 72.134.38.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 1
    2. 2
    3. 3
    4. 4
    5. 5
    6. 6
    7. 7
    8. 8



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 9

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

    Comments: The IP has repeatedly removed languages ​​within the infobox website on Crunchyroll's page explicitly citing that the streaming service only has 14 languages ​​available according to its official website; specifically it has English, German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, Turkish, Russian, Japanese, Arabic and Hindi when in reality there are 20 the number of anime series and movies available in its complete catalog with audio original Japanese and with subtitles, only that Sony, the owner of this platform or Crunchyroll itself, have not officially made the announcement of the possibility of it expanding to more territories, more countries and more languages ​​without waiting for this to happen next. 190.167.0.99 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Categories: