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

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

Revision as of 08:38, 2 August 2011 editAlecmconroy (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,935 edits →User:Fastily assistance requested by User:Alecmconroy (result: no vio)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:29, 4 January 2025 edit undoAndreJustAndre (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users40,484 edits →User:إيان reported by User:AndreJustAndre (Result: ): ReplyTag: Reply
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 = ~~164~~		\|counter = 490
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
	}}</noinclude>		}}</noinclude>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}<noinclude>
	__TOC__</noinclude>
	<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->
	<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	<!-- dummy edit -->

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Indef~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: /23 blocked from both articles for a week) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Israel~~ ~~and~~ ~~Nazi~~ ~~Germany~~ ~~comparisons~~}} <br />		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky}} {{pagelinks\|Letcher County, Kentucky}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|~~Whoneful~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|174.196.104.11}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* 1st revert: "Undid revision 442107267 by Malik Shabazz (talk): Rv. POV editing"
	* 2nd revert: "~~Reversing~~ ~~POV~~"		# - Dec 31 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips"
			# - Dec 31 "Per source of Dave Leips"
			# - Jan 1 "These are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
			# - Jan 1
			# - Jan 1 "these are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
			# - Jan 1 "per source of Dave Leip’s"
			# - Jan 1 "These are the correct results per source of Dave Leip’s"

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

	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ~~N/A~~		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />All the differences on both pages concern whether to use the numbers from a website called (which cites the Kentucky State Board of Elections as its data source) or the Official 2024 General Election Results provided by the . The number for "other" votes on the page before the edit warring was 126 for Letcher County (per election board), which the IP insists on changing to 146 (per Dave Leip).
	], like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is subject to a one-revert rule. That means an editor may make only one revert during any 24-hour period. Please see ] for more information.

			I should also note that {{ping\|Mad Mismagius}} reverted all but one and the current IP edits on these pages without warning the user or attempting to engage in talk page discussion. I made one revert and left a warning on the user's talk page, who later reverted my revert.
	Please note that there is a large white edit notice that appears above the edit box on this page:
	{{Editnotices/Page/Israel and Nazi Germany comparisons}}

			Also, there are two other IPs (now dormant) that made identical edits on these pages with similar edit summaries. One on "Correct Letcher County votes" and another on "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips". ] (]) 05:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|a week}} {{IPvandal\|174.196.104.0/23}} from articles. ] (]) 06:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have had to deal with this IP address as well. The issue seems to be that they are conflating "third party candidates" with write-in votes. ] (]) 22:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week partial block for both parties) ==
	:Also note ]'s response to edit-warring messages: — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	::The user has been indef-blocked as a sock of {{user\|JarlaxleArtemis}} (Grawp).] ] 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
	:::Look out guys, Grawp is at it again! If he attempts to vandalize Misplaced Pages again, try to contact Jimbo wales. Or report him to ANI. ] (]) 02:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
	::::{{facepalm}} ]<u>] ]</u>— 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Salim Halali}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: technical decline as stale) ==

	'''~~Page~~:''' {{~~pagelinks~~\|~~Draft dodger~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|174.93.89.27}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|The-Expose-inator}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- 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 the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1266895720\|18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Source is about Bone."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1266892993\|diff=1266895307\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266895244\|18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Well, if the dispute is about sources, this peer-reviewed academic source should settle the matter."
			## {{diff2\|1266895307\|18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1266892452\|18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) - No need for the talk page. Just click on the link for Bône in this article."
			# {{diff2\|1266871456\|16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) - Be that as it may, it is now known as Annaba."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- 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\|1266893024\|18:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
	* 1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1266895726\|18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */"
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:

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

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

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	*I realize this was given a bit late, sorry.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			* I have partially blocked the IP for one week. {{u\|M.Bitton}} reminded not to edit war. ] (]) 18:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			* Point well taken. The only thing I would add is that M.Bitton, who has been blocked before for edit warring, reverted four times, and passed the three-revert limit before I did. You might, therefore, consider blocking M.Bitton for one week as well. ] (]) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{re\|PhilKnight}} contrary to what the IP is claiming, I did not violate 3R. ] (]) 19:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: partially reverts the biography to a previous state. And anyway, I blocked you for edit warring, not 3RR. ] (]) 19:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes it does revert it to the stable and well sourced version (the one that actually makes sense, given that Annaba has been known as such for centuries). For the rest, no comment. ] (]) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Well argued. I have partially blocked M.Bitton for a week as well. ] (]) 19:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Eagle Rock, Los Angeles}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	I realize this isn't a violation of 3RR, but it is edit warring where the user is not making an attempt to discuss this specific issue on talk. I brought in a ] which stated that the content isn't relevant to the article, but did not address my concerns about ]. I then posted on the ] where two users have said it is clear original research. These links have been provided on the ] when I made my revert, but The-Expose-inator continues to revert. The user has posted on the article talk page but did not address this specific content. The only discussion the user has given about this content is on my talk page which is mostly in regard to the user's personal experience, which furthers the original research, and does not address that the content is out of place in the article. If you look at the user's talk page, the original research issue has come up before.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Horsechestnut}}
	Thank you--] (]) 15:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|s}} This is a '''technical decline''' only. For the edit warring alone, the issue is just too stale, and you both look equally at fault. However, the original research/proper sourcing issue is too difficult to be decided on the edit warring noticeboard, but it is appropriate to take up the issue on the other noticeboards. I recommend taking it to ], because it is a combination of both edit warring and reliable sourcing, so a ] block isn't appropriate for either ] or ]. ] (]) 00:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	**Thank you, but I'm quite confused about the 'equally at fault' part. I expressed my concerns at the talk page, I brought it to third opinion, I posted on the OR noticeboard. The consensus there was to remove the content. Even after this, am I supposed to do nothing in reply to the editors' reversions? --] (]) 14:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result:Caiboshtank blocked ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1266945204\|23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1266914884\|20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] I am in the process of deleting unnecessary text so that what remains is referenced, cited information, but can't complete this process if you keep on deleting my work before I have finished editing. Please give me time to complete my edits. Horsechestnut. Please do not delete this User talk:CurryTime7-24

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Great Rebellion}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1266922503\|21:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Caiboshtank}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

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

			User has also been using the account ] to pursue this edit war. They have been warned on both accounts. ] (]) 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			:{{AN3\|p}} – One week by ] per a complaint at ]. ] (]) 03:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ], IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for a week) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|French mother sauces}} <br />
	<!-- 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 -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hippo43}}, {{userlinks\|2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:6C91:81FE:34E1:80E0}}, also {{userlinks\|2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:A9B8:61A6:B4BA:3525}} and other IP's with the same prefix
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Previous version reverted to (Hippo43):''' ]
	<u>Comments:</u> <br /> As well as breaking the 3RR rule I'm guessing this user is a sock of either ] or ]. If you look at the edit history their first edit was to remove reference material and label it as vandalism . All their edits since they have appeared five days ago is to revert material added by ]. I will notify the user of this report. ] (]) 20:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to (IP):''' ]
	*Caiboshtank {{AN3\|b}}. Another instance of a ]. Blocked indef for sock-puppetry per ], block-evasion, harassment and edit-warring--] <sup>]</sup> 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
	*This is nothing to do with ]. This is a reaction to the long term problem of a single user being rather successful at imposing his world view on Misplaced Pages in defiance of many policies. The matter should not be handled here. Instead, I expect ] is the place. ] (]) 14:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
	:It's regrettable, but until the constant push to curb the usage of ''British Isles'' by the editor-in-question ends? those on the opposite side, will likely continue to sock. ] (]) 15:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:'''
	== Intervention in edit war with ] requested (Result: Reporter Warned) ==
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

			'''Diffs of IP's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' ] <br />
			# ] (probably same IP)
	'''User being reported:''' ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

	~~:Original:~~		There are a few more, just look at which is nothing but reverts.
	:1st Revert:
	:2nd Revert:
	:3rd Revert:
	:4th Revert: (Current version)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ] (IP), ] (Hippo43, the IP warned them)
	I have been involved in an edit war with ], in which disputed content provided by myself was repeatedly deleted. A ] was submitted by this editor in the conclusion of a prior edit war, involving possible copyright infringement by content translated nonverbatim by myself and others; it is claimed that said content does not fall under fair use for non-close paraphrasing. No real effort has been made to address these two disputes in Talk.

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], discussion is still on talk at ]
	Regardless of whether a copyvio is judged to exist by administrative staff, there seems to be some sort of problem that this editor has with edits submitted by myself. The reverts noted above do not involve the only unsourced content in the article, but it was singled out for dispute. I don't want to assume bad faith, but it seems that the editor takes issue with me -- and the copyvio injunction seems somewhat gaming. I thus request some sort of 3rd party intervention. For the time being, I will cease to make any edits to the page involved.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to Hippo43's talk page:''' ]
	-- ] (]) 17:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to IP's talk page:''' ], ]
	:{{AN3\|d}} Please refrain from edit warring and repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into Misplaced Pages. The next time you do this, you ''will'' be blocked from editing. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
			I made the table, so of course I would like to keep it in, but at this point neither the IP nor Hippo43 seems interested in a discussion at all. Please end this month-long edit war. :-( ] (]) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|one week}} Both editors, from the article. ] (]) 05:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from moving pages for 2 weeks) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|MikeLynch}}

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

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

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1266972528\|01:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "EclipseExpress moved page ] to ] over redirect: The title was "Floorleess Roller Coaster" before it was changed to "Floorless Coaster". "

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

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> This editor is not willing to consider any logic. He is also provoking me to complain to some administrator. (This can be seen by the smiley that he put after his argument. In spite of giving point-wise arguments, he thinks most of my points are redundant and refuses to answer them. This will boil to an edit-war hence, I am appealing it here as I don't know anyplace else where I can do so <br /><big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small> 20:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
	:Please do not misconstrue my comments, I do not intend it to be provocative. In fact, I would want a mediator to review the discussion and bring an end to it; I want to resolve this issue peacefully. Anyway, I have not broken 3RR, so I don't think its an edit war as such. Probably Boolyme is looking for ]. ''']]''' 20:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Result:''' No violation. Boolyme, your suggests you are planning to fix the article all by yourself. This is unlikely to work. Please present your arguments on the talk page and wait for consensus. An ] could be opened to bring in more participants. ] (]) 02:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	] is busy since several days on edit wars on many articles related either to Greek topics and some other ones. From the nature of the edits he seems to have a chauvinistic Greek and pro-Pyongyang Communist agenda. There are at least a dozen articles involved. He also edited as ] and ] (precisely the same type of POV edits). This seems to be going on since at least two months, some edits have been reverted but he is going on with disruptive edits. --] (]) 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

			This is a new user who needs to be warned about moving pages without discussion. I need help restoring this. There seems to have been an intermediate move to a misspelled page, so I cannot restore it to the way it was. ] (]) 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Typical examples:
			:Reverting a revert that explicitly pointed towards ] is a problem. ] (]) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	* ] : and
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} from moving pages. ] (]) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	* ] : and
	* ] : and
	* ]: and
	* ] : edit war, see

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporting editor blocked 48 hours) ==
	Pylambert is behaving in an authoritarian manner, and tries to censor me. He/She even removed many well-referenced edits that I made. He/She accuses me of edit war, yet he/she is the one who began the edit warring. If he/she had grievances about my contributions, he/she could have started a discussion with me to express them. Instead, he/she first deleted much of my work, which took hours of serious work to complete, and now accuses me in a truly insidious manner. I think I deserve an apology...
	] (]) 03:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent
	:The examples above show the type of "well-referenced edits" ] introduced on wikipedia, plus the use of an IP address in the edit war on ]. There is no discussion possible with someone whose presence on wikipedia obviously has for main (only) purpose to make that type of chain edits with a political agenda (or political agendas). --] (]) 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Crunchyroll}} <br />
	::Question: On what grounds exactly is this "POV vandalism"? ] (]) 06:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GachaDog}}
	:::Considering the 99% of his other bad faith POV "edits" (vandalism) I didn't try checking that one in particular, I assumed it was of the same kind and reverted it, that's a consequence when you vandalize articles like he systematically did, other users can't trust any of your edits. --] (]) 06:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::::So basically you're saying you blindly reverted everything. This is rather poor form for an editor as experienced as yourself. While I agree that many of his edits are indeed problematic, I wouldn't say "99%". There is also a difference between POV-pushing and vandalism, see ]. Neither of you has made any attempt to discuss things on talkpages, and again that is poor form. Also, please consider that your tone isn't helpful (calling everything another does "POV vandalism" will only serve to inflame things further). I revert problematic edits ALL the time - but I don't use labels, simply because there is no need and such things are best avoided. ] (]) 07:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Considering the type of edits, and the number of them, simply reverting them would encourage the vandal user to go on, rereverting them under his pseudo or under an IP identity (as he did on the ] article). My attention was drawn on this "user" because of on ], which is on my watchlist. I immediately recognized the typical Greek chauvinist vandal and I went to watch his other edits, after a dozen my suspicions were confirmed, even if he's also a pro-Pyongyang POV-pusher in addition. These are not just problematic edits, but a ''mala fide'' editor who should be prevented to go on. When I finish writing this, I see the decision on this dispute, I won't go on losing my time with this, I am leaving now for work and I will not be online before <s>days</s>hours, sorry. --] (]) 07:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{AN3\|d}} Please take this issue to ]. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
			# "We don’t need an owners field to put bigger companies as the owner"
	I'm glad that justice has been done. Let this be an example to other would-be censors with a totalitarian mentality like Pylambert.] (]) 10:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent
			#
			#
			#
			# "Because you can’t use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent. Crunchy roll is a Joint venture of SPT and Aniplex"

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Srđa Trifković}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Opbeith}}

	<!-- 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:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	] has insisted on linking ] to ], despite discussions on his user talk page (]), the article talk page (]) and an extensive discussion at BLPN (] indicating he should not do so. While he has not technically broken 3RR, this edit-warring is particularly inappropriate because:
	#He has been reverted by 3 different editors, and has been told by one that .
	#There is an extremely strong consensus at ] that this material does not belong; in fact, '''eight uninvolved editors''' there agree it doesn't belong, and '''no uninvolved editors''' agree it belongs. Despite this, and despite realizing that people consider this to be a very significant BLP issue, Opbeith pretends the consensus doesn't exist, and continues to edit-war.
	I think a strong message needs to be sent here. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	The points I raised simply haven't been answered either at the article talk page or at the BLP noticeboard. All that happens is the consensus is insisted on. Jayjg seems to consider the references I've cited are irrelevant. "this is so 100% wrong" etc. was not accompanied by a convincing explanation of its so 100%ness. Apologies if I sound flippant, I'm actually rather angry about this because I consider the information excluded to be serious and relevant and I find it rather offensive that my arguments are dismissed simply as an attempt at implying "guilt by association". I would like to be treated rationally, not just told off. ] (]) 23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} ] 06:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Hello, here I have a user who still removing the infobox field from articles related to streaming services, media companies, conglomerates, etc., without reason, explicitly saying that it should not be used to indicate which top-level property if It is different from the parent company if all this is demonstrated with or without sources than if they actually own the same company. ] (]) 07:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Soska Sisters}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|MikeWazowski}} and {{IP\|75.80.79.246}}

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 3 months) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Khulna Division}}
	<!-- 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:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|76.68.24.171}}
	<!-- 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 -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mike is experienced enough to know 3RR. The IP has been .

			'''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: (None)
			#
			#
			#

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	I'm not involved in this dispute, but would like to bring it up. The IP has also made personal attacks on Mike's talk page.] ] 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	:I don't think that Mike actually crossed 3RR. Mike redirected the article (not a revert, as this was the first time it was done), then twice reverted the IP on undoing that redirect. Then Mike stopped edit-warring on that, and instead included several maintenance templates. The IP removed them, and Mike reverted once (up to 3 reverts). Since then, no editing has taken place. While the IP did cross 3RR, xe did so only before being notified of the ] by Jasper Deng. I don't think either editor should be blocked here, but I'd like other admin opinions before explicitly declining this. ] (]) 00:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
	::Actually, Mike notified the IP long before my own warning. See the diff I supplied.] ] 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|d}} Agree with Qwyrxian. I'm watching the page. ''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|American Revolutionary War}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|76.125.58.198}}

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

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Paul Pelosi}}
	<!-- 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:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|138.88.222.231}}
	<!-- 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 -->

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

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			*See ]
	For the record, ] engaged in this edit war of reversions (more than 3), but has made an honest effort to discuss with the user on page talk and user talk. I've templated both users, in order to maintain a fair tone between editors. ] (]) 00:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*Comment: the IP was actually warned prior to Buster's warning posted above with the significance being that this warning was received ''before'' the IP's last revert.<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">]</span> 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
	::<del>{{tnull\|AN3\|d}} No reverts since 3RR warning. If the IP makes another revert, leave a message on my talk page and I'll block them. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)</del>
	:Was MagicPiano's warning (which preceded the IP's last revert) not considered as valid?<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">]</span> 03:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
	::It was indeed. Not sure how I missed that. {{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::Thank you for your consideration.<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">]</span> 05:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

			EW with IDHT and copyvios. – ] (]) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] assistance requested by ] (result: no vio) ==
	<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
	:''The following discussion is an archived debate <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this section.

			User uses disingenuous edit summaries ("Edit Citation") to reassert edits , as noted by the difference between successive attempts (addition of three do-nothing spaces to cite template). <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>] (]) 18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st deletion of comment:
			*{{AN3\|ab}} ] (]) 03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 2nd deletion of comment:
	* 3rd deletion of comment:
	* 4-- issues a "block warning" for inappropriate comment ''"formatting"'':
	::<small> (is there any such rule preventing mid-text-block replies? I've never heard of one, I had no idea a sitting admin would think it was blockable)</small>

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	This isn't a clear-cut article edit war over content. This is a user who three times removed my own comments in a discussion I was actively involved in. He also issues a block-threat for something I don't believe is a valid reason.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wounded Knee Massacre}}
	Others and I have problems with how he's using the delete tool, but that's a different issue. I don't think a 'calm down' block actually helps anyone calm down, I won't ask for blocks or anything. Just please remind people to not delete others' comments or threaten blocks for invalid reasons, especially when in policy dispute with them.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GreenMeansGo}}
	That's all the needs be said. He doesn't need a "time out"-- just please remind him that deleting comments and threaten bogus blocks is still verboten.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	I may be an aggravating factor at this point, so my role on the discussion will now wane. --] (]) 06:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	I have not notified the user, pending vetting of my comments. If they're baseless, he needn't be bothered. If someone needs to talk to him, let it be someone he trusts, no someone he's mad at. --] (]) 06:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
			#
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			#
	: I don't know about the first diff you link to above; it seems to have been some genuine confusion about edit conflicts in the heat of a rapid exchange. But in the subsequent edits, you had been doing something rather odd, duplicating a whole section of discussion from other people. Of course that duplicated batch should have been removed. Now, please go back to the ANI page and clean up the mess. If there's a comment of yours that was in danger of going missing, restore it to where it originally fit, but remove all that duplicated stuff, it's very annoying. ] ] 07:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	::EC is a totally plausible explanation, though since you've been active in the discussion you're hardly the person to make the call.

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::If you too hate my 'formatting', delete the whole thing section and be done with it-- the needed audience has heard my words. If the behavior doesn't change, more people will just show up after me to say the same thing.

	::I think you guys need to get on irc and pow-wow, try to think harder, about why I should have been threatened with a block for "bad formatting". Being 'messing' during ECs? You're letting people block over that, are you? Explain to me again why anyone could be blocked for good-faith 'bad formatting'? Explain to me again why ANYONE should even be THREATENED with a block for good faith fortmatting style problems on a frickin talk page. Think long and hard on that one. "Messy" doesn't cut it.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	::I get the sensation that a lot of these new "hard line" stances about 'no fair use' and 'no unapproved talk page formatting' are 'improvisational' rather than 'consensus-based'. That is, at least one admin looks like he's just making these 'rules' up as he goes along. --] (]) 07:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
	::(ec) Alecmconroy has created a horrible mess: (ugh!) (double ugh!) That mess is his responsibility. Reporting somebody here who tried to clean it up is disruptive, ] (]) 07:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
	::::Oh my, aren't I verbose! So, are we blocking people for good faith vebosity now, or just threatening them for it? Oh, you guys still haven't come up with the answer for that? back to the old irc drawing board, as they say. --] (]) 08:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
	:::-rolls eyes- Tell me about it. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
	::::So, you were just BSing about formmating blocks being justified under policy? Still waiting for the citation on this. --] (]) 08:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
	Closing this. The mess has been cleaned up (not by the person who caused it, unfortunately), there's clearly nothing more to do here, nobody broke 3R, and the thread is producing only heat and no light at this stage. ] ] 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> I do not often use ANI, as I feel that it is far preferable to discuss and find a peaceful resolution, but in this case I feel my hand has been forced. I attempted to speak with the edit warring editor many times, and even asked them to self revert on many occassions, both on their own talk page as well as the article in question's talk page. They mockingly said "Have fun I guess." about coming to ANI, though I would have much rather we continued to discuss the subject and the sources in dispute on the talk page. At this point they are 5 edits in to a edit war and I politely stopped at 3 edits so as not to violate ]. I am a bit surprised it came to this and I apologize in advance to any admin who may now need to block the offending editor and revert to the prior consensus and stable lead on the article which had been present for many months before this editor aggressively became involved just today.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
	::Fair enough. Fastily, you lied to try to threaten me with a block you had no right to give. You lied to say I intimidated you. And to all involved, the heat you've gotten from me is nothing compared to what you'll get when you start deleting images other people took time to upload in good faith.
			* Well, the first edit is just a crappy source that I randomly found pop up in a change on my watchlist. The two edits are consecutive. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page and offer a resolution. But since this seems to be a slow-motion edit war by OP going back , we may have some OWN issues to unpack. ]] 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::If you want light, don't delete in use educational legal content.
	::if you want heat, just keep up the work. You will all be burned out so fasts you won't know what hit you, and if you survive, the project will likely fail. Goodluck, and my last word --] (]) 08:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ponnunjal (film)}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262246919\|diff=1267230449\|label=Consecutive edits made from 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) to 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267230326\|05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1267230449\|05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

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


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


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

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

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

			'''Page:''' ]

			'''User being reported:''' ]

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			#
			#

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

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


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

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

			I'd love to add also that he argued that the religion of the suspect in the lede is {{tq\|Absolutely relevant to the potential motive for the attack and therefore}} in this edit summary which can only imply that he believes that being a Muslim is enough of a motive to commit terrorist attacks.
			*{{AN3\|w}} No 3RR violation and user was warned of the 1RR restriction after their last edit. ] ] 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Subcompact crossover SUV}} <br/>
			'''Previous version:''' <br/>
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			'''Comments:'''
			This editor has reverted many useful edits, and most of my edits, other users' edits, without explaining their reverting of edits with citations .
			*{{AN3\|nv}} ] ] 07:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

			See ,

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

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

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

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

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

			:@] but إيان is correct that the addition market no sense... This is not something to drag someone to ANEW over. ] ] 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::So 1RR is waived when the edits don't appeal to someone? I thought 1RR was a bright line rule. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And in my view the edits make sense and I thought edit warring is wrong, even if you're right? Are you weighing in on the content, or the behavior? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Wow, this is so petty AndreJustAndre. ] vibes. When they brought this up on my talk page, they ] the tenuous nature of their grievance: {{tq\| While '''the two edits are slightly different''', in both cases you removed the addition of 1885, '''arguably, two reverts, '''violating the 1RR sanction on this article,}} emphasis my own. When they ] me to self-revert, I ] them to seek consensus on the talk page. Instead, they decided to waste everyone's time at ANEW.
			:I didn't go in and explain my edits because I didn't think it was worth it, but it appears the first time I 1885 was accidental as I was trying to manually manage an edit conflict. I thought the only addition was the source. (Pharos ] on the talk page that AndreJustAndre's information aobut 1885 information was erroneous; AndreJustAndre then felt it was to include 1885 and used wording that makes no sense. ] (]) 19:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::POINT is when you ''disrupt'' Misplaced Pages to prove a point. I invited you politely to revert yourself and reminded you of 1RR. Is 1RR waiveable? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also it's not at all clear that the 1885 information is erroneous. That's in an active discussion on talk. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned; indefinitely blocked) ==

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267343727\|18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing."
			# {{diff2\|1267343865\|18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning notice on ]."

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267352536\|19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) reverted vandalism by grudge-bearing stalker"
			# {{diff2\|1267352090\|19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1266663622\|17:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

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

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


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

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

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

Latest revision as of 21:29, 4 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

User:174.196.104.11 reported by User:Wowzers122 (Result: /23 blocked from both articles for a week)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

- Dec 31 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips"
- Dec 31 "Per source of Dave Leips"
- Jan 1 "These are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
- Jan 1
- Jan 1 "these are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
- Jan 1 "per source of Dave Leip’s"
- Jan 1 "These are the correct results per source of Dave Leip’s"

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:
All the differences on both pages concern whether to use the numbers from a website called Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (which cites the Kentucky State Board of Elections as its data source) or the Official 2024 General Election Results provided by the Kentucky State Board of Elections. The number for "other" votes on the page before the edit warring was 126 for Letcher County (per election board), which the IP insists on changing to 146 (per Dave Leip).

I should also note that @Mad Mismagius: reverted all but one and the current IP edits on these pages without warning the user or attempting to engage in talk page discussion. I made one revert and left a warning on the user's talk page, who later reverted my revert.

Also, there are two other IPs (now dormant) that made identical edits on these pages with similar edit summaries. One on Dec 27 "Correct Letcher County votes" and another on Dec 29 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips". Wowzers122 (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a week 174.196.104.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) from articles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have had to deal with this IP address as well. The issue seems to be that they are conflating "third party candidates" with write-in votes. Chalandray (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User:174.93.89.27 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 1 week partial block for both parties)

User being reported: 174.93.89.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Source is about Bone."
Consecutive edits made from 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Well, if the dispute is about sources, this peer-reviewed academic source should settle the matter."
2. 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) ""
18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266885362 by M.Bitton (talk) - No need for the talk page. Just click on the link for Bône in this article."
16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266617369 by M.Bitton (talk) - Be that as it may, it is now known as Annaba."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Salim Halali."
18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have partially blocked the IP for one week. M.Bitton reminded not to edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Point well taken. The only thing I would add is that M.Bitton, who has been blocked before for edit warring, reverted four times, and passed the three-revert limit before I did. You might, therefore, consider blocking M.Bitton for one week as well. 174.93.89.27 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@PhilKnight: contrary to what the IP is claiming, I did not violate 3R. M.Bitton (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit partially reverts the biography to a previous state. And anyway, I blocked you for edit warring, not 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does revert it to the stable and well sourced version (the one that actually makes sense, given that Annaba has been known as such for centuries). For the rest, no comment. M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well argued. I have partially blocked M.Bitton for a week as well. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Horsechestnut reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266922310 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)"
20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266911668 by CurryTime7-24 I am in the process of deleting unnecessary text so that what remains is referenced, cited information, but can't complete this process if you keep on deleting my work before I have finished editing. Please give me time to complete my edits. Horsechestnut. Please do not delete this User talk:CurryTime7-24

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eagle Rock, Los Angeles."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has also been using the account Cjcooper to pursue this edit war. They have been warned on both accounts. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected – One week by User:Daniel Quinlan per a complaint at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:

Diffs of IP's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:EclipseExpress reported by User:JlACEer (Result: Blocked from moving pages for 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "EclipseExpress moved page Floorless Coaster to Floorless Roller Coaster over redirect: The title was "Floorleess Roller Coaster" before it was changed to "Floorless Coaster". "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a new user who needs to be warned about moving pages without discussion. I need help restoring this. There seems to have been an intermediate move to a misspelled page, so I cannot restore it to the way it was. —JlACEer (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverting a revert that explicitly pointed towards WP:RMUM is a problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from moving pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: December 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

what about their other ip addresses?

They are using slang in edit summary.

check this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

now check this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Bbb23,

again with another IP

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

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

@Bbb23,

Thank you so much for your time.

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See Talk:Paul Pelosi#Property portfolio

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

Page: 2025 New Orleans truck attack

User being reported: User:justthefacts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

User:Andra Febrian reported by User:HiLux duck

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

See ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: