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 00:59, 8 June 2013 editObiwankenobi (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,991 edits →Comments: r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:14, 30 December 2024 edit undo331dot (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators182,649 edits →User:Remsense reported by User:2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (Result: No violation): ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{pp-move-indef\|small=yes}}<noinclude>{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]{{User:MiszaBot/config
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~215~~		\|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><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked indefinitely for now) ==
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Trisha Krishnan}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TheHappiestEditor}}
	'''Pages:''' {{pagelinks\|Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons}} <br />
	{{pagelinks\|Suicide of Audrie Pott}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tieff}}

			'''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:'''
	User is edit warring on two articles to insert content sourced to an unreliable source listed at ]. Noticeboard thread: ].
			# {{diff2\|1265432813\|22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
			# {{diff2\|1265165246\|13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."

			*Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
	Multiple warnings issued to user, who has not responded to any of the messages on his or her talk page or participated in the discussion at article talk.
			#
			#
			#

			#
	Diffs of the user's repeated edits at ] (6 in <48 hrs.:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	Talk page discussion is here:
			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	]
			# - putting fake sources/infomation

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Diffs of the user's repeated edits at ] (4 in <48 hrs.):
	#		#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	User warned about edit warring:

	] (]) 06:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*'''Comment''' I have these articles on my watch list and have reverted Tieff's edits twice now, leaving warnings and comment. They are edits that appear trivial but are against consensus, against the spirit of ], and against multiple discussions. Date of birth is discussed specifically not only in the editor's talk page but on ], as is the so called source. I'm starting to see the initial stages of ], so far without the support squad. What we have so far is relentless editing against consensus. <font color="#880000">]</font> <font color="#007700">]</font> 07:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

			POV pushing/cherry-picking "Malayalam" and edit warring in a lot of articles. Apart from the above listed, the user has been pushing "Malayalam" as one of the languages in which "actor XYZ" has acted 'predominantly' in but in actuality the entries are only a few . The editor has received multiple warnings for being disruptiove and a recent one for from {{u\|Krimuk2.0}}. - ] (]) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Further comment by filing editor'''. Although the user appears to have made no edits since this report was filed, I believe that allowing it to go stale would be a mistake. Since the user has shown no sign of willingness to acknowledge being warned (even to refute the warning), let alone discuss the matter, it isn't improbable that they will resume edit warring and this will wind up at ANI. This is is really a rather clear-cut case of edit warring; on the first article listed above, 3RR was even exceeded. And it's not a run-of-the-mill content dispute at all; rather, it's at least three established editors trying their best to enforce ] in the face of a new editor who is completely disregarding policy. If something about the format of this report is causing difficulty or delay, I'd appreciate knowing so that I can fix it. ] (]) 05:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|w}}. I've left a formal warning on Tieff's talk page that if they revert again on either article, they may be blocked without notice.--] (]) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			:{{u\|TheHappiestEditor}}, please respond to these allegations. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: edit warring has ceased) ==

			{{u\|TheHappiestEditor}} has engaged in further edit-warring, with the same "Malayalam" language POV pushing, with {{u\|19Arham}} . ] (]) 06:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|HTML element}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PhunderMerwe}}

			:{{ping\|ToBeFree}} Apparently, they do not want to respond , but would very much continue with their POV . Also note removal of sources . - ] (]) 13:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	This is mostly a content dispute, although a new editor is pushing the same incorrect change with such frequency that it has passed 3RR already. An already poor article is having an unreferenced block of incorrect information added to it. The latest block is still there (and still misleading), but I'm at 3RR.
			:@] and I spoke on my Talk page where they said the following: "The information regarding ] has been removed multiple times despite being supported by reliable sources, such as </nowiki>]. This violates ]'s verifiability policy. Could we discuss this further to reach a consensus?" ] (]) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The removal of content isn't a violation of the verifiability policy; restoring content against ] or ] is. Dealing with other editors' concerns about one's editing isn't optional if the editing continues, and {{u\|TheHappiestEditor}} had the chance to respond here. ] (]) 16:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|indef}} for now. ] (]) 16:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
	Note first that this is ], not ]. HTML could be considered as an "introductory" article where some flexibility in terminology might be considered useful to make it more approachable to a wide audience. However this is HTML element: the narrow, specific topic that is of particular interest and of a need to be exact and precise in its description.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|103.84.130.238}}
	Specific problems:
	* Elements are not tags. This is not merely a misnomer, they represent different objects. This is the article in which this difference has to be explained precisely and correctly.
	* Elements are not "text level elements". Some elements are related to text, others are not. This term is not merely a neologism, it's an invention, and an inaccurate one.
	* (Most importantly) ''"element is a code declaration that contains instructions for formatting or rendering content online."'' is quite wrong for HTML in the last decade and a half: instead we carefully ''separate'' content (HTML) from its presentation (via CSS). This new statement completely contradicts this and so is grossly misleading. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of this distinction within HTML.
	* %block; (vs. %inline;) is part of the HTML DTD and is relevant to HTML element. However the box model (as now added) is a purely presentational feature, belonging as part of CSS. The new additions persist in hopelessly confusing the two.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	] (]) 23:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* Now they're still "improving" the article by changing titles and direct quotes from sources, including technical non-prose changes like renaming the <code>%inline;</code> entity from the HTML DTD to <code>%in-line;</code>. This is simply incorrect. ] (]) 01:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262480024\|diff=1265542339\|label=Consecutive edits made from 12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC) to 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1265541681\|12:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1265542339\|12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""https://www.hariprasadchaurasia.com" check the site pandit is part of his name , the site is run by him, also there are other similar cases too on wikipedia "
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*'''Result''' The edit warring has now ceased, and the other issues are a content dispute. I'd suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and inviting participation at relevant Wikiprojects as unfortunately this isn't an effective forum for resolving content issues. Regards, ] (]) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			#
			#

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: page protected for 36 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Captain America: The Winter Soldier}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Rusted AutoParts}}

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

			Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			:The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a warning, but was to report it here. - ] (]) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	#
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	#
			*:@] Sadly, the IP is now doing the exact same thing over at the article ] (]). — ] ] 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	#
			*::Blocked, thanks. ] (]) 16:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	#
	#

			== ] reported by ] (Result:Indefinitely blocked) ==
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}}
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on <strike>article</strike> talk page: (User's Talk Page)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	User Rusted AutoParts has consistently reverted the order of the film's cast to one not represented on the film's press release without reason. The User has ignored any attempts to discuss this matter, so I am forced to bring it here.<br>] (]) 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Plain and simple: I disagreed with placing the two most likely men to be credited towards the end of the cast above the primary players in the film (Evans, Johansson, Mackie, Stan). The first three reverts were 5 days ago, well out of the 3RR range. Assuming this is a legit report out of offence or the user wishes to be correct in the matter, the reverting has ceased and no furthur action will be taken in regards to LoveWaffle's pickiness of the location of the named actors. ] (]) 5:46 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*{{AN3\|pe}} You both seem to have conduced a similar amount edit warring over what is, to be frank, a pretty minor issue with no attempt to discuss this on the talk page, which is where dispute resolution is generally best handled. I've fully protected the article for 36 hours to allow for this dispute resolution to take place. RAP, please note that there's no 'entitlement' to three reverts in a day, and edit warring which lasts across several days is strongly discouraged. ] (]) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
			# {{diff2\|1265621270\|21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265402736\|19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265399005\|19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265395466\|18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265394604\|18:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|March Against Monsanto}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Petrarchan47}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	Five in the last 24 hours:
	* ;
	* ;
	* ;
	* ;
	*
	Plenty more before that.

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	; Petrarchan47 has since removed that section from their talkpage.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	started by other editors (including ) but the reverts keep on coming. ] (]) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Oops - I missed a point. DGG also a talkpage thread (after having been by Petrarchan47) but, alas, after DGG's comment it went the same way as the other threads. Not that I'm implicating DGG of course ] just that various different editors have started talkpage threads. ] (]) 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	For anyone unfamiliar with this (new) topic, please look at the references section at ]. This article was being considered for deletion when I discovered it, and began doing research and filling up the article with references. When you glance at the refs, you'll see "2 million" or "millions marched". Now you can bobrayner quoting from a local newspaper (printed online while the protest was still ongoing) that the numbers "ranged from 200,000" to 2 million, and making a crack about RT, even though it is recognized as RS (CNN was also a source for the 2 million number and no major media has mentioned a "range from 200,000"). This change to the number happened at ] as well as ] today.

			Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (]) ] (]) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	The main issue at hand, besides having my words misrepresented as a promise to edit war, is that I am not being allowed to tell what one of the protesters' main points is. It gets reverted every time. I think it is an incredibly NPOV handling of the issue and is sourced to the Guardian: "in the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment." This is all I have said about the GMO issue, besides adding some quotations from their protest signs. But this is an article about the protest, and what caused them to go out and marched HAS to be mentioned (this is not a promise to edit war, it's a simple fact).
			* {{AN3\|b\| indef}} Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	If any administrators are listening, Please, can we get a babysitter at that article just while it's written? I don't know the right way to tell this story, but I do know that the fact that people are wary of GMOs, ie, the reason the protest exists, has to be mentioned. Why is it so hard to tell this simple story?

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Automotive industry in China}} <br />
	Yes, I erased the messages from my talk page because frankly, it seems like harassment. I've been around, and I have never had as many comments on my talk page about what I'm doing wrong (in fact, none that I can think of) as in this past week working on this one article. I think the article needs supervision. I don't know what else to say. I've put in a lot of time and effort to get a neutral article that is factual. What I see is a well established group that works on GMO articles who don't seem to see that ] is not one. I have gone to two administrators to ask about this problem, and was pretty much told there is not much that can be done. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Infinty 0}}
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I don't have time to review this in-depth, but the five diffs listed are not all reverts. Two are out of order, but, more important, two pairs are consecutive edits and therefore count as one revert each.--] (]) 02:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*Yes, you are right. Mea culpa; I lost track whilst up to my neck in tabbed browsing. Aggregating series of reverts, there's only 3 net reverts in the last 24h.
	:*It doesn't help that every single attempt to deal with the problem, ''including this report at AN3'', gets bogged down in arguments about how other editors are biased and about how the article must reflect the TRUTH &c; but that's not editwarring per se. Sorry. ] (]) 02:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*A promise from one or more of the parties to wait for a talk page consensus before making further changes would be welcome. I did not detect much hint of compromise in Petrarchan47's statement above. His suggestion that the messages left on his talk are harassment looks to be incorrect. The most obvious reason for the complaints on his talk page is that some other people disagree with his changes. If he is interested in consensus, he could try negotiating with them instead of deleting their comments. ] (]) 02:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I have no problem agreeing to wait for consensus on future contentious edits. I have been choosing to work with editors on the talk page of the article, rather than mine. I am not making a formal complaint, but it is true that after a few of those comments on my talk page, it did feel like harassment to me and actually ruined my weekend to be very honest. I am not at all happy that I stumbled upon a GMO-related article. This is a most unpleasant task. I do hope someone will help. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>'''
	:::::What Petrarchan is alluding to here is that he thinks there is a large conspiracy to insert "Pro-GM" material on wikipedia: . Him, Gandydancer and Groupuscule appear to think they are fighting the good fight against US Corporations (they have been battling at the BP article for some time), e.g and have been relying on a mixture of favourable opinion pieces to insert highly polemic statements into the article, ] (]) 09:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I think what Petra is alluding to is that this RfC has no basis. No edit warring occurred. BUT, now that Petra is "in the pillary" he (?) is fair game for other questionable attacks. Petra is doing a stand-up job to improve the articles of WP. Let us all get back to the pleasentness of WP editing. ```]<small>]</small> 13:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::This is not an RfC. ] (]) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I haven't been involved in this article, but I noticed this discussion on Petrarchan's talk page. This appears to be a content dispute, since it appears to be agreed that no 3RR violation took place. Why not close this out and end the drama? ] (]) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Note that Coretheapple and Buster are two editors piling in from ]. ] (]) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull. Thankfully, with the result of 'No action', we can all move on. ```]<small>]</small> 20:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' No action. It is hard to believe that Petrarchan47 is editing in a neutral manner on this article, but there is no 3RR violation. Issues of POV pushing are usually handled at other noticeboards. The ] article seems to have been since the person who opened the AfD was convinced to withdraw the nomination. A number of people seem to believe that the anti-GMO people are using Misplaced Pages for publicity, but that question can't be settled here. Petrarchan47 and his opponents disagree as to the extent that the article should uncritically quote whatever the protesters are saying about the bad effects of GMO. This is a matter for consensus and it is not up to admins to ensure that 'the story is told.' Reflecting what major news sources have said about the protest would be more defensible. ] (]) 17:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Invasion of Normandy}} and other related edit warring over the last few days <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Syngmung}}
			#
			#
			#

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts in the ] article (all 5 June)
	#
	#
	#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Diffs of the user's similar reverts in other Battle of Normandy related articles:
	* (4 June)
	* (2 June)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	Previous related edit warring in the ] article
	* (1 June)
	* (1 June)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (1 June)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <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 -->
			This user continued to even ''after'' a 3RR warning was on the user's talk page. The user does not seem to want to address substantive issues on talk to reach consensus and instead prefers to engage in NPOV, ], ] behavior and ad hominem attacks. - ] (]) 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy discussion of the problems with the content which is being edit warred all over the place at ] and ]. Syngmung has not been attempting to discuss why he wants to add this contested material into the other articles, and simply edit wars. ] (]) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	This is a report of sustained edit warring to push a point of view rather than a 3RR violation. {{user\|Syngmung}} has created the ] article, and is trying to edit war material from it into other articles, despite serious concerns raised by myself and others about the neutrality of this article. ] (]) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hephthalite–Gokturk raids of 614–616}} <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|وقت الصلاة}}
	{{comment}} I know Nick-D well, we have had conflict concerning ]. We should try to unthread emotional entanglements.--] (]) 11:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:? I haven't had any involvement in your edit warring in these articles other than in regards to the ] article. This is a report of your sustained edit warring, and not a discussion of content. ] (]) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{comment}} See . Nick-D lose his calm mind. He refuse conversation.--] (]) 11:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Removing a new thread you started on my talk page after this report was lodged in which you accused me of "hidding outcasters acts" is not relevant to this report, except to illustrate your POV pushing. ] (]) 12:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{comment}} I have been involved in trying to bring some sense to this article. ] refers to the initial day of invasion and not the Normandy Campaign. My reverts have been again changed without any adequate and understandable reason. I would add that there is only one source, and newspaper review of same, for any rape allegations, which have not been mentioned by any other reliable sources. I also have to say that this person seems to be pushing POV and also seems by their history, to have a unhealthy interest in rape. Thank you, ] (]) 12:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	{{comment}} I came across Syngmung's somewhat obvious ] edits to ] and reverted him. Another user apparently thought based on a technical error in my revert that I was a vandal, so I figured creating an account might prevent this from happening again. This user is clearly attempting to promote a POV that American troops in South Korea are rampantly engaging in rape of local women, and so has been ]esizing sources to create links between this and other topics such as the Normandy landings and the . ] (]) 12:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			#
	:Read the source by Katharine Moon.--] (]) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			#
	::I already read it. You misrepresented it and I removed your misrepresentation . ] (]) 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	::{{comment}} The comment above by Synmung illustrates their bias and POV. There is only one source quoted! It really is time to stop this POV pushing and obsession with rape. ] (]) 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}.--] (]) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

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

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

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

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	This user appears to have a long history of trying to remove "promotional" content from articles without discussion. When I tried to resolve on his talk page I got this response:
	:For information, this was my latest response to this editor's complaint on my talk page:
	:::"My reversion applied solely to a large edit made by a user (who has made no other edits to Misplaced Pages) on 30.5.13. It was clearly intended to be promotional and it was impossible to separate out the flagrant advertising from the potentially useful (but uncited) material. ] has been known to apply to editors who threaten to have me blocked. . . ] (]) 10:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)"
	:] (]) 13:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

	:: Having read ] I can see the intent of his actions, but deleting large sections of text, in my view, comes after (1) Tagging the article as such (2) Requesting on the talk page that the article be re-worded to reflect ] (3) As a last resort, wholesale deletion of large sections of text. It is one thing to be ], but another to not attempt to get the article toned down beforehand. This user appears to be very deliberate in his actions, to the extent of removing "self promotional" material from user pages, as evidenced by this diff . I can understand the basic reason for taking out advertising from articles, but from the page of a user?? ] (]) 14:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Not sure if my edits to ] are the only subject of the complaint, as it appears my entire editing history is now under scrutiny. I am beginning to feel as though ] is ] me. . . ] (]) 16:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|d}}. Mean as custard has not violated ] as he has reverted only 3x (as has Bhtpbank). Regardless, the material he removed should have been removed, and the notion that it should have been tagged or "toned down" is meritless in this instance.--] (]) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Swahili language}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Adelmira}}

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

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

			:{{reply to\|Remsense}} Your accusation that I left {{tqi\|a highly visible article in a broken state for hours}} is a completely baseless ] and should lengthen your block. Any administrator can read the article's diffs and confirm that at no point did I do such a thing. You're the one who deleted well-referenced material. ] (]) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- 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. -->
			:As a related side note, it does not seem that the IP editor really cares to follow ] in this instance. - ] (]) 00:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			Add to the above the following ] by Remsense on the article's talk page: . ] (]) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (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 -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			:Additionally, when I Remsense with the appropriate user warning for this personal attack, they {{tqi\|get the hell off my page}}. This is a clear violation of ]. Add it to the list. ] (]) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- 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 would like to back up the complaint against Remsense here, as he also recently failed to assume good faith in edits I posted and attacked me personally as an editor. He then followed me and deleted another edit I had posted on an unrelated page afterward after I questioned his conduct on his talk page (which he then deleted.) I question whether his temperament is suitable to be a moderator on Misplaced Pages.
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			::] (]) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::There is no such thing as a moderator on Misplaced Pages, Remsense is a Normal Editor like you and not an Admin Either. ] (]) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thank you. I stand by my comments on his temperament and conduct regardless.
			::::] (]) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::It is not reasonable to take someone's actions in good faith when they lie, both straightforwardly and by omission, in their representation of said actions to others. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 04:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::No one lied, I made what I felt was a minor edit. You then jumped to incorrect conclusions, insulted me after I criticized your uncivil and unprofessional conduct and then stocked my editing history to an unrelated article. Your conduct in my view continues to be as I described, and I continue to hold your temperament to be ill-suited for editing here. I ask that you show humility and engage in much needed introspection and improve yourself if you intend to continue posting here. ] (]) 04:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It was not a "minor clean up", and you know it. I don't have to pretend I don't also know it, so don't bother. FWIW I have ] on my watchlist, but you're not entitled to your contribution history being immune from scrutiny when one instance belies the clear possibility of more. That's why it's there. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 04:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::As I said, humility and introspection would serve you well, but I see no benefit in further interaction with you. Take care. ] (]) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Another way of stating this would be to say that you didn't follow the date format rules (why doesn't really matter), used misleading/uninformative edit summaries experienced editors have seen countless times before with BCE->BC and CE->AD transforms like 'Minor clean up' and 'Minor grammar cleanup', and Remsense left you an informative message to help you avoid repeating these kinds of errors. ] (]) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{AN3\|no}} Remsense smartly reverted his last revert, so ]. However, this has not been Wikipedians at their best. The IP's that the cited source does not mention this has not been addressed; instead this edit war broke out over something entirely procedural which is not even policy. Further discussion should, I think, focus on the issue around the sourcing of "equitable" and whether that word should be cited in the intro. ] (]) 18:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{reply to\|Daniel Case}} A violation ''did'' occur. happened long ''after'' the violation was reported here at ]. You cannot exempt a user from punishment just because they self-reverted long ''after'' being reported to try to avoid said punishment. Furthermore, Remsense . ] (]) 17:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Blocks are not a punishment, but a way to end and prevent disruption. By self-reverting, they recognized they erred, meaning the risk of further disruption is low. If you wish to pursue a grievance against another user's alleged broad pattern of behavior, that's not done here, but at ]. ] (]) 18:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{+1}} ] (]) 18:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{reply to\|331dot}} {{reply to\|Daniel Case}} That's what punishment does: Deterrence. By letting Remsense get away with this violation, you're breaking your own rules and encouraging similar behavior in the future.
			:::::::Do you have any personal connection with Remsense? ] (]) 21:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::It's funny this happened on ], given how frivolous and easily superseded this line of argumentation is. In cases as transparently explicable as this, unmediated claims of conspiracy truly are the last refuge of the scoundrel. Bless. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{reply to\|331dot}} {{reply to\|Daniel Case}} To clarify, are you saying that if someone self-reverts long ''after'' being reported for a violation, they are exempt from any kind of consequence? ] (]) 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Given you have safely proven yourself a scholar of counting to 4, I recommend the remainder of ] to expand your horizons even further. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::This wasn't really helpful. ] (]) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I have nothing to say beyond what I already said. If you have evidence that they have truly not recognized their errors, or have a long pattern of behavior that requires evaluation and action by the community, AN is the proper forum. ] (]) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::And no, I have no connection with this user. ] (]) 22:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Refer to AN/I) ==
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Crunchyroll}} <br />
	Editor isn't responding to warnings/requests for refs. Similar edit warring at ]. — ] (]) 16:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|72.134.38.53}}
	*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}}.--] (]) 19:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Azerbaijani people}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Qara xan}}
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079451
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079773
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558118054
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558282348
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558428541

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Qara_xan

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u></br>
	The person refused to use the talk page to cease our edit war and he does not go against my arguments on the history page either.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The IP has repeatedly removed languages within the infobox website on Crunchyroll's page explicitly citing that the streaming service only has 14 languages available according to its official website; specifically it has English, German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, Galician, Turkish, Russian, Japanese, Arabic and Hindi when in reality there are 20 the number of anime series and movies available in its complete catalog with audio original Japanese and with subtitles, only that Sony, the owner of this platform or Crunchyroll itself, have not officially made the announcement of the possibility of it expanding to more territories, more countries and more languages without waiting for this to happen next. ] (]) 00:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	History page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&action=history
			:{{AN3\|d}} This looks a little too complex for the scope of this noticeboard; I think AN/I would be better. But, since infoboxes are ], I have put a notice to that effect on the talk page. ] (]) 08:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

	] (]) 17:~~48,~~ 5 ~~June~~ ~~2013~~ ~~(UTC~~)		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for a week) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1917 (2019 film)}}
	:I again repeat that the reliable source, ] writes Turkic people. Please read ]. Your propaganda edits in ] ( ) was undoned by two users: Samaksasanian and Qara xan. You are not right. ] 19:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes ] say : Azerbaijani, any member of a ] living chiefly in the Republic of ] and in the region of Azerbaijan in ]. but ] Does not accept ] is a ].--] (]) 19:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|MapReader}}
	::with 'Turkic-speaking people' you know for certain that the ethnic group speaks a Turkic language which is the case. With 'Turkic people' it suggests that their origin is Turkic which isn't believed to be, explained in paragraph 'origins'. There was nothing wrong with the original 'Turkic-speaking people' so why change it? To propagate that their origin may be Turkic which again isn't the case? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Indian Ordnance Factories Service ‎}}
			# {{diff2\|1265946281\|10:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) It's a long-standing descriptor that has been in the article since early 2020, not that long after the film was released, that has been discussed extensively at least twice. You challenge it by going to the talk page."
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|117.200.157.144}}
			# {{diff2\|1265894186\|04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) The page carries the full discussion from 2020 and 2023, which includes reference to the relevant guidelines and the necessary citations. You don’t just wade in a year later and change the article without resuming the talk."
			# {{diff2\|1265827012\|21:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) There was no consensus for your removal, which referred to talk page discussions that didn’t exist, or at least weren’t contemporary"
			# {{diff2\|1265757721\|14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Per RS, restoring the consensus position prior to the autumn edit"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1265942155\|10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|952190013\|00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) on Talk:1917 (2019 film)}} "/* Country? */ r"

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

			There is no consensus for this inclusion that this editor has restored 4 times in the past day, despite multiple prior talk page discussions. – ] (]) 10:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			:: This editor has repeteadly endeavoured to force a change in an article that has twice been subject to lengthy prior discussion, ignoring all my requests for him to raise this on the talk page in the normal way. The diff he or she provides as an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is four and a half years old, and not from the same account name, and doesn't represent any attempt to resolve the issue since it was a contribution to a discussion that both left the article unchanged and has been superseded by a longer more recent one, in 2023, that established consensus. Pitching up four years later and trying to force a change after a discussion in which you took part - under a different account name - simply because you disagree with the outcome and without resuming the conversation or taking any account of a lengthy further discussion in which this editor apparently did not take part, is disruptive editing.
			:] (]) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{AN3\|b\|one week}} from the article. This was a tough one to call. I thought seriously about declining it as all the discussion has been civil and it seems everyone is not only acting in good faith but ] (well, there is as of now ]). Had I decided to decline, I would have done so on the basis of the edit being reverted to being rather old ... we have no policy guidance on how old that edit has to be; sometimes people here have cited year-old edits as the basis of their complaint. But at the same time I would commend MapReader's attention to ]: "''... a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent''", contrary to .<p>The underlying problem is, as IN notes , is that this dispute falls neatly into a gap that FILMCOUNTRY fails to address, an issue as noted best resolved at the policy level. In the meantime, though, policy shortcomings cannot be allowed to justify edit wars, and in the meantime I read LOCALCONSENSUS as, by implication, deferring to the decision made here on the talk page.<p>MapReader is acting in good faith when they point out the lack of clear guidance. All the same ... while they are correct again to note the deficiency of citing the 2020 discussion as a basis for consensus when the 2023 discussion exists, I read that 2023 discussion as, in the noted absence of clarity at the policy level, establishing a consensus for following FILMCOUNTRY and leaving the countries of production out of the lede entirely while noting them in the infobox. MapReader's good-faith skepticism about Lumiere's methodology notwithstanding, it does not give them the right to revert the current lede.<p>Since, as it turned out, I have previously partially blocked MapReader before for similar conduct, and there has been an intervening sitewide block, I am doing it again, this time for longer. ] (]) 19:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thank you for the explanation. Just to be clear, the lead was stable between 2020 and late summer this year, 2024, on the basis of the 2020 and 2023 discussions. It was the other editor - who appears to have contributed briefly to the 2020 discussion but under a different username - who intervened to make a change late this summer, without revisiting the talk page at all, and after I restored the status quo, has attempted to force this through today without discussion. While I realise I made one revert too many, his/her gaming 3RR to force through an edit that runs contrary to previous discussion, and citing a four year old comment as evidence of being willing to talk about it, was having a laugh, IMHO. ] (]) 22:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Like I said, this is best addressed at the policy level. ] (]) 18:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 Wisconsin Senate election}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Stormy160}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	he/she is reverting my edits and then says he will warn me!think it is the same person accusing me of being a sock!
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

	I don't understand why IOFS officers would be sent to National Academy of Direct Taxes. They have nothing to do with taxation. LBSNAA is a general public administration academy set up by the Govt of India to train officers from all India serives and the Central services. It's mentioned in the citaion I've provided. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:'''Result:''' Article fully protected three days. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the disputed points. ] (]) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Minorities in Pakistan}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|109.145.244.1}}

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|558593021\|2013-06-06T12:04:07Z}} "Undid revision 558590936 by ] (]) vandalism by Mrt"
	# {{diff2\|558580558\|2013-06-06T10:05:27Z}} "article is basically a pov hell hole reads more like a transcript from a indian movie"
	# {{diff2\|558578255\|2013-06-06T09:41:19Z}} "Undid revision 558313895 by ] (])"

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|558592317\|2013-06-06T11:57:53Z}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): It's not your talk don't revert my posts here. It was not tagging the page, but undiscussed, unexplained removal of well-sourced content."
	# {{diff2\|558589502\|2013-06-06T11:36:17Z}} "Final warning: Vandalism."

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />I have repeatedly tried to discuss it with the editor, posting a long response to each thing reverted in the article but to no avail, as the user read my response, disagreed, and then reverted back to their desired change, claiming I said something I did not. I have no idea hoe else to resolve this conflict because the table me and other editors built has had 0 issue until this one editor came in and started claiming issues existed with it (that don't exist by the way). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			:Yes, that is edit-warring. PS - We should have a link to the ''consensus'' being mentioned. ] (]) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This user will not engage at all. I gave examples of what I was talking about, only to be called “dense”. They clearly just want full control over the page, nobody is allowed to edit their previous work. So yes, I did try to explain the precedent. I engaged on the talk page to no avail, which of course the user did not mention in their report. ] (]) 21:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page full-protected for three days) ==
	:Uncivility? thats rich coming from a guy who refers to some editors as "typical pakis" your hypocrisy in mind boggling your article is just a platform for you to express you anti-Pakistani pov which comes naturally to indian editors (not all but most) how about we create a few articles on indian minorities I can assure you that Mrt will send messages to canvass every indian editor to get the article AFD he is a hypocrite and a pov pusher ] (]) 12:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Pooja Hegde}}
	That IP wanted to ''unilaterally'' (without any discussion whatsoever) and edit-warred about it too. When I told him "Tags should be added as a last resort." he behaved utterly uncivilly with me on my talk based on personal attack and allegations. He was given a final warning by me but he reverted it and continued disruption ← do something about it. It's classic example of tag bombing. Take appropriate action ''please''. <br>he was also edit warring on . Admin {{UT\|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington}} commented, "This is likely a sockpuppet account." <br>I don't know who the puppeteer might be. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 12:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Thesanas}}
	*'''Comments by Faizan''': MrT needs to differentiate between Vandalism, and "removal of text" or "adding tags". He issued warnings on the talk page of the IP and named them as "unconstructive". That is not appropraite. Secondly four absoulte reverts are necessary for 4RR,resulting in "'''no violation'''". <span style="border:2px solid #000;background:#000">]]</span> 13:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|two weeks}}. The probable sock master is ]. @MrT, you should have looked at the IP's block log and the IP's user page; that would have pointed you in the right direction.--] (]) 14:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Thank you very much Sir. Yes, I ought to have checked the user's block log. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Near East University}}
			# {{diff2\|1266008901\|17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Restoring the last version by User:Charliehdb"
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Orhanozkilic}}
			# {{diff2\|1265919879\|07:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]): WP:ONUS applies to those who adds contents. I only replaced with reliable sources. Please stop WP:EDITWAR here"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1265915618\|06:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|~~558601894~~\|~~2013-~~06~~-06T13~~:~~27:10Z~~}} ""		# {{diff2\|1265915247\|06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* GA article */"
	# {{diff2\|558599893\|2013-06-06T13:08:23Z}} ""
	# {{diff2\|558578612\|2013-06-06T09:45:08Z}} ""

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|558600440\|2013-06-06T13:13:34Z}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			Additional warring is and . User erased previous warning from their talk page and was warned numerous times about getting consensus on the talk page. Has been reverted by three different editors at this point but user still does not seem to get it. ] (]) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	#

			:I restored user:Charliehdb last edit . What is the mistake in restoring other users edits? I am here to expand and make this article with reliable sources. Why are you removing my edits with reliable sources and making this article with unreliable sources? ] (]) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			::Pretty sure {{u\|Charliehdb}} is a ]. ] (]) 06:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Wouldn't surprise me but I am not sure I would get much reception at SPI at this point with as many filings I have done recently on Indian film related UPE, SOCKS, and MEAT.--] (]) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::They obviously do not care about ] and likely UPE based on the continued . I will let them continue to bludgeon and just roll back once they are blocked. Not worth the stress of trying to clean up the page when they don't seem to want to work within a collaborative community. --] (]) 07:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{AN3\|p}} in full for three days, since while the submitted diffs do not constitute a violation as there aren't enough, we clearly can't let this go on. With the allegations of socking and meating, this really should go to AN/I ... or SPI, CNMall's reservations notwithstanding. ] (]) 18:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
	Note: Twinkle did not give me the option to add three correct examples, so I selected as third one a partial edit, a complete revert is .
	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}}.--] (]) 15:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|United States men's national junior ice hockey team}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Manofwar0 Blocked) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Stevencocoboy}}
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Anjem Choudary}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|OrangesRyellow}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	reverted 5 times today in total ] (]) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
	Broke 3RR on Anjem Choudary alone ] (]) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} by ].--] (]) 14:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours each for Archcaster and Beerest355) ==
			# {{diff2\|1266124850\|05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */ Hide it first because ]"
			# {{diff2\|1266122972\|05:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Please stop the edit war, I want to edit and update result only"
			# {{diff2\|1266121493\|05:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Why? we can update the result which the events are finish"
			# {{diff2\|1266118183\|05:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Bob's Burgers (season 4)}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Archcaster}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1266124147\|05:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Stevencocoboy}} "/* Respecting consensus of your fellow editors */ new section"
	# {{diff2\|558620492\|2013-06-06T15:52:39Z}} ""
	# {{diff2\|558609942\|2013-06-06T14:32:44Z}} ""
	# {{diff2\|558486184\|2013-06-05T18:53:26Z}} "Undid revision 558484557 by ] (]) Yea, Hi. No one knows for sure if it's premiering on September. Misplaced Pages is not a "crystalball". Undo this edit, you'll be reported."

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|558504457\|2013-06-05T21:08:22Z}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|558474497\|2013-06-05T17:25:02Z}} "/* User page */"
	# {{diff2\|558474470\|2013-06-05T17:24:50Z}} ""
	# {{diff2\|558471934\|2013-06-05T17:05:15Z}} "/* User page */"
	# {{diff2\|558471910\|2013-06-05T17:05:05Z}} ""

			Look at his person's talk page. They have been warned over and over and over. Just at they must be 10x reverts. I didn't report that because he promised me he would be better, but it hasn't stopped him. ] (]) 07:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			:Sorry it's because I don't know a consensus in ]. I'm not American and my english is poor. I don't know we can't update a result and we need until the event was completed. Also I need using some times to translate what is talking about. After I translate it, I'm stopped edit in the page. Thanks. ] (]) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Here's the thing... you have been warned of this many times on multiple subjects, and you've been editing here for 10 years now. I count that you have been warned 11x since September 2024... most of which you didn't answer on your talk page. In October you were told by an editor "Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges." On December 24 I told you to "Self-revert or I WILL report you, and you will get blocked" for 8 reverts of Template:U.S. Figure Skating Championships. The same day I told you "You are also dangerously close to being blocked for your edits at "U.S. Figure Skating Championships." Yesterday a third editor told you to stop vandalizing "United States men's national ice hockey team". You were told about edit warring and to read up on consensus by editors at WP:Hockey. And then again a warning for "United States men's national junior ice hockey team".

			::This has gone on long enough. For your own good you need to be blocked a couple days to think about things and you really should be doing one edit and then move on to another topic. As soon as another editor reverts your new edit that should be a huge red ringing warning not to edit that page again until given the go-ahead by other editors on the talk page. This has to stop NOW before your privilege of editing here gets revoked. I was stern with you on your talk page about your 8 reverts, but you stopped and we came to a compromise, and I did not report you. Since then your talk page has been filled by five more minor and major warnings. ] (]) 08:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I can promise stop editing about ice hockey pages in recent days and calm down more because I've make a controversial. I'm sorry again. Thanks. ] (]) 08:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{AN3\|d}} with leave to re-report if reported user breaks his promise above. ] (]) 18:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Thanks, that's good enough for me. ] (]) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Huaynaputina}}
	*First of all, I am not doing edit warring, the ] is, I have nothing to do with this. He started the edit war, I didn't. Honestly, I don't know why the ] was dumb enough to report me anyway over some reliable source that the user typed in as a blog and me undoing his edit is a problem. Also, what does the user page situation have to do with this, Nothing! --] (]) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*For someone who has been edit warring you have quite a mouth. Skip the uncivil comments. They only make matters worse for you.--] (]) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*This doesn't concern you ] and yes I have a mouth because I was born with it, thank you very much. --] (]) 14:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::*As an admin, this case does in fact concern Bbb23. Archcaster, even if you feel you're right, continous reverts are always edit warring unless they remove outright vandalism. Archcaster and Beerest355 have been blocked for 48 hours. ] (]) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Atsee}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked - see above) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Bob's Burgers (season 4)}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Beerest355}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1266208513\|16:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) don't revert for no reason. If you disagree with my reasons for making an edit, you need to explain why."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1266205410\|diff=1266205775\|label=Consecutive edits made from 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) to 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266205683\|15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) first one doesn't need to be a footnote; second is not necessary; third is not relevant; fourth doesn't even make sense."
			## {{diff2\|1266205775\|15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) there is no citation where the fact tag has been placed. place the relevant citation there. that is all that needs doing."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262695206\|diff=1266185442\|label=Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC) to 13:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266184197\|13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "removed a lot of footnotes which are redundant. there is no need for a definition of a term when the term is linked."
			## {{diff2\|1266185193\|13:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "doesn't need a dictionary link"
			## {{diff2\|1266185442\|13:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Caldera collapse */"

	;Diffs of ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1266205992\|15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Your edits on Huaynaputina */ new section"
	# {{diff2\|558641263\|2013-06-06T18:32:45Z}} "adding this back"
	# {{diff2\|558489739\|2013-06-05T19:21:31Z}} ""
	# {{diff2\|558486648\|2013-06-05T18:57:10Z}} "Undid revision 558486184 by ] (])

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ / ~~3RR~~ ~~warning~~:		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1266206482\|15:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Footnotes */ Reply"
	# {{diff2\|558504408\|2013-06-05T21:08:04Z}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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

			Discussion at ], user repeatedly deleting footnotes without a valid reason on a Featured Article ''''']''''' (]) 16:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This user clearly wanted an edit war. Witness their utterly unhelpful edit summaries in their three reverts:
			:* - there is no inline "right there"; that's the precise reason I put a "fact" tag there.
			:* - no other interpretation than reverting for the sake of reverting is possible.
			:* - again reverting without any attempt to provide a rationale.
			: There was no need to file this report. There is discussion on the talk page. The user evidently wanted an edit war, and evidently wanted to make a fuss about it. ] (]) 16:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::It took you multiple reverts before you actually even replied to the talk discussion, even after explaining in the FA and your talk pages, you continued to insinuate you are in the right. While the discussion was active, after Mike Christie's reply, you continued your reverts. ''''']''''' (]) 16:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I noticed the didn't trigger the undo tag but the edit summary suggest a revert and subsequent changes before publishing. It would count to three reverts. ''''']''''' (]) 16:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Indefinitely blocked along with their IPs for 3 months (]).--] (]) 17:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	*I'm not sure if this has much to do with anything, but I'd like to point out that the first edit noted here is not a revert. ] <small>]</small> 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*Of course it is.--] (]) 01:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*It isn't a revert. I added the link back after citing it at the ], and ], the user I was in a conflict with, seems to be OK with it. There are some disputes about the reliability of the source in question, so I'm intending to open a reliability discussion. ] <small>]</small> 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Matriarchy}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|36.228.143.128}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of Rainbow Codes}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|‎Holothurion}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Trivial crap, but 4RR is still a bright-line, last time I looked.

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

			# {{diff2\|1266181569\|13:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1266162425\|10:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1266057097\|22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1266056003\|22:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""

	Diffs of ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1266184214\|13:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Wotan is one of the Norse gods, aka Odin. This name also appears as Wōden in some languages. In German though, at least mid-20th century German, it was "Wotan". This led to the military codename for the German WWII ] <s>radar</s>radio navigation device being "Wotan" (and not "Wōden"). The name is probably the best-known aspect of this <s>radar</s>radio navigation device, at least in the UK, owing to ]' book and TV series ], where this injudicious choice of codename let slip a significant military secret. I have no idea of the linguistic / historical preference for Odin/Wotan/Wōden and I make no comment on which should be the canonical WP article name, but ''for WWII German <s>radar</s>electronic warfare'' the name was clearly Wotan.

	In the article ], itself about military codenames, the piped link "<code><nowiki>the one-eyed ]</nowiki></code>" was used, because Wotan already appeared earlier on the line.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	‎Holothurion is now changing this piped link <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code>, not from any claimed virtue or for any content reason, but seemingly because "redirects are bad". I'm unaware of this. Are redirects to be switched off shortly? Is our regular call "redirects are cheap" no longer accurate? This is a minor point (as is almost everything at ANEW), but
	* This is a change, a change driven by one solitary editor, and in such cases it's our usual practice to want to see some improvement achieved, not merely editing for editing's sake.
	* Wotan is correct ''in this context'', Wōden is not correct. The link target is visible from the hover text and as the piped link isn't the most obvious link ever, readers are likely to look at that text.
	* 4RR is 4RR

			IP has persistently inserted extraordinary claims and violated the three-revert rule. ] (]) 16:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	The only comment from Holothurion is on the lines that its redirects that are simply the problem, not text itself (with a side-order of gratuitous vandalism accusation), ''"Redirectioning must be avoided as much as possible. Stop changing it back, or you will be reported as vandalizing"''
			:{{AN3\|d}} as user has not edited since the last warning they got ten hours ago (of course, if they resume ...). I ''will'' leave a CTOPS notice on the talk page. ] (]) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

	] (]) 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	:Andy Dingley's arguments would be correct and valid if the link pointed to an article named "Wotan" and I was changing it to the one pertaining to another deity, related or not (p.e. Jupiter and Zeus). But, since the link in the text in fact redirects to the ] article, I'm only changing it so it points to said article without any redirection involved which - being that there's not actual "Wotan" article nor is a case of it being renamed/moved - is in this event unnecessary and avoidable; I'm taking into full account the rules and guidelines described in ]. The content, purpose and meaning of the aforementioned text in ] remains completely intact.
	:Regarding the report warning (which I recognize was overdid on my part), it was given to Andy Dingley with the best of interests in mind pertaining both of us and the ], and also in the grounds that the user was about to start/started an edit war that could be avoided and resolved through discussion instead of continually resort to changing/reverting the ] article. With all that said, I should point out that neither of us violated the 3RR. — ] (]) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:: Why (per ]) is this redirect "broken", so that you are having to repeatedly "fix" it?
	:: If it is ''not'' "broken", so that there is nothing to "fix", then why are you repeatedly changing it?
	:: ] (]) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I have left a message on Holothurion's talk page informing him that he has in fact breached 3RR and explaining what he must do to avoid a block.--] (]) 15:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Message answered on my talk page. - ] (]) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. Based on Holothurion's self-revert, acknowledgment, and promise, I'm closing this report.--] (]) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	* Unrelated issue, but I've now had yet another abusive and trolling email from "Reisio" (who I'm sure isn't {{user\|Reisio}}) claiming that because Wotan wasn't a radar then my point is invalid and I should be indef blocked for edit-warring and stupidity. I am getting just a little fed up with these (Four now). I know that WP can't/won't do anything about checkusering, but I have notified your ISP. ] (]) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Yazdânism}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|46.239.60.21}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	UPDATE: 5th revert:


	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	This article is only a sample of this IP's massive edit warring all over the place. The IP based in Bosnia (which apparently changes every 24 hours) is contentiously 3RR edit warring (with bias) against all users on multiple articles all over the place. Previously edit warred all the same articles as ] yesterday, ] the day before... ] /]/ 18:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	:I've started disscusion of ] and i've informed three admins about the issue. Til Eulenspiegel and his fellow IP-POV-pushers didn't leave any constructive comments, just forcing their POV as in other cases. This editor is falsely accusing me of being sock also. --] (]) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	Note this IP is also the subject of an SPI now, for being the sock of ]. ] /]/ 19:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} by another admin. This is playing out in other forums.--] (]) 20:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|London School of Business and Finance}} <br />
	'''Users being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ystino19827}}, {{userlinks\|0987nervewracker}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	The edit warring is happening over a period of several days, with at least four registered users, as well as ] involved in the reversions. Several users, including ] ] and ] have been trying to un-revert these users' changes. I am not involved in the edit warring; I have simply reverted it back to the pre-edit war version. ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}}. I've semi-protected the article for a week. The registered accounts are not auto-confirmed. However, the material is too inflammatory to leave in, and I've removed it as unreliably sourced (blogs and other similar websites, plus a YouTube video).--] (]) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Female genital mutilation}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Obiwankenobi}}

	This is not a 3RR report, but a report for edit warring over two days about terms used for, or comparable with, female genital mutilation (FGM). This is a contentious issue and the editor has been made aware of that . He is adding terms that are not equivalent to FGM, or are already discussed or linked in the article, and has reverted in whole or in part against three editors who have removed them.

	*His 1st edit to the article: , added two terms to See also
	:*1st revert: , restored one of the terms (partial revert)
	*2nd edit: , added a hatnote linking to three terms
	:*2nd revert: , restored hatnote (wholesale revert)
	*3rd edit: , added alternative terms to infobox
	:*3rd revert: , restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
	:*4th revert: , restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
	:*5th revert: , restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)

	] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

	===Comments===
	I'm reporting this because Obiwankenobi has been involved in other serial reverting recently, and seems to feel that he can revert up to 3RR. See his comment in this edit summary when removing a warning: .

	The other reason I'm reporting it is that I believe he followed me to ] after I opened an RfC to change the title of ]. He is strongly opposed to the Sarah Brown RfC, and shortly after I first commented on that talk page at , he appeared at on the FGM talk page to add links to page moves, his first-ever edit to the talk page or article. It's possible that it's a coincidence but it's unlikely; I had made FGM-related edits just before my first comment on the Sarah Brown page, so they were obvious in my contribs.

	Obiwankenobi's edits to FGM were accompanied by going to several redirects to FGM, or related articles, and changing them, apparently to match the edits he was making to FGM. Examples: It's not that's there necessarily a problem with all these edits, it's just that there was a sudden interest in edits about female genitalia. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

	:FWIW, I do not appreciate the attempt by SV to link these two sets of edits - they are quite different. One set of edits was around linking to existing wikipedia articles for ] and ], while the other set of edits was around adding terms widely used in the literature "Sunna circumcision" and "Pharaonic circumcision" to the infobox ; both of these terms are already mentioned in the body of the article - my change was to simply add it to the info box. --] (]) 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

	::Those are not equivalent terms for FGM. This is the problem with editing the article to make a point, and not being familiar what is a complex and sensitive issue. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::I don't think this is the forum to discuss the substantive issues, but the notion that '''you''' know and '''I''' don't, as well as the assertion that I'm trying to make a point (what point might that be?) is a bit misguided here. I'm emphatically not trying to make a point, by any edits, full stop.--] (]) 00:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

	===Slim Virgin / Boomerang ===
	Slim Virgin has 4 reverts in the same exact time period.
	*
	*
	*
	*

	So WP:BOOMERANG should be considered here. But I'd rather not impose sanctions against anyone here, if possible. But if you look carefully, every single line of text I've tried to add to the article has been reverted by SV, so there is also an issue of WP:OWN here.

	I admit to being frustrated and doing 3 reverts above, which I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that - it's just the edit summaries said the names weren't backed up by sources, but the actual source linked backed up almost every single name, and other sources in the article back up the other names - so I was frustrated that people were reverting without reading any sources while claiming that the edits were not sourced. I was wrong to revert though.

	Anyway, I'm sorry about the reverts above, and it won't happen again, I will take it to talk earlier. As to SV's other allegations, I've added "old moves" to a number of articles, and FGM is one I'd been meaning to do for a while; seeing it mentioned on SVs and other people's talk pages reminded me to do so. That's it. I'd also rather SV not insinuate I'm up to something nefarious, when in fact I corrected some long-standing mistaken redirects per the edits above. I'm a gnome, so when I come across an article, I fix what I feel needs fixing.--] (]) 00:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. Most of Obiwankenobi's comments are misguided. However, based on their apology, I have left a message on their talk page that they may avoid a block if they agree not to edit the article for seven days.--] (]) 00:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:14, 30 December 2024

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:TheHappiestEditor reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked indefinitely for now)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265170057 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) She works in Malayalam cinema.There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha. The total number of Malayalam films is not two."
13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC) "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."

Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)

- putting fake sources/infomation
- putting fake sources/infomation
- putting fake sources/infomation

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

@ToBeFree: Apparently, they do not want to respond here, but would very much continue with their POV . Also note removal of sources here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheHappiestEditor and I spoke on my Talk page where they said the following: "The information regarding Wamiqa Gabbi has been removed multiple times despite being supported by reliable sources, such as . This violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. Could we discuss this further to reach a consensus?" 19Arham (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The removal of content isn't a violation of the verifiability policy; restoring content against WP:ONUS or WP:BURDEN is. Dealing with other editors' concerns about one's editing isn't optional if the editing continues, and TheHappiestEditor had the chance to respond here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree Sadly, the IP is now doing the exact same thing over at the article Shivkumar Sharma (diff). — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Blocked, thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

Blocked indefinitely Two day old account with 19 edits, a block, and that personal attack? Bye. Jauerback/_dude. 21:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Ironically, the user @Amigao made a substantial change to the article without explanation or consensus (as can be clearly seen from the article edit history) before any useful discussion took place. He had always emphasized that edits should be made based on discussion, but his actions were exactly the opposite. If someone is instigating an edit war, I think it is clear which side started it first. Infinty 0 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

All my edit explanations are in the relevant WP:ES. If any WP:ES is missing in my edits to the article, please feel free to provide diffs. - Amigao (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

And ad hominem attacks? This is a very serious accusation, and I do hope you have enough evidence to support it, otherwise it is just malicious prosecution and frame-up. All our communications and opinion exchange is clearly visible on the talk page and edit history. Infinty 0 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

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

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Also ECP protected (I edit-conflicted with Bbb23 here) I was going to block the editor concerned, but instead I have reverted their latest edits and ECPd the article; they can discuss their edits on the talk page rather than edit-warring when they are unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Big thanks to you both! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense reported by User:2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

@Remsense: Your accusation that I left a highly visible article in a broken state for hours is a completely baseless attack and should lengthen your block. Any administrator can read the article's diffs and confirm that at no point did I do such a thing. You're the one who deleted well-referenced material. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As a related side note, it does not seem that the IP editor really cares to follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in this instance. - Amigao (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Additionally, when I notified Remsense with the appropriate user warning for this personal attack, they replied with get the hell off my page. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Add it to the list. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to back up the complaint against Remsense here, as he also recently failed to assume good faith in edits I posted and attacked me personally as an editor. He then followed me and deleted another edit I had posted on an unrelated page afterward after I questioned his conduct on his talk page (which he then deleted.) I question whether his temperament is suitable to be a moderator on Misplaced Pages.

MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a moderator on Misplaced Pages, Remsense is a Normal Editor like you and not an Admin Either. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I stand by my comments on his temperament and conduct regardless.

MrJ567 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to take someone's actions in good faith when they lie, both straightforwardly and by omission, in their representation of said actions to others. Remsense ‥ 论 04:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No one lied, I made what I felt was a minor edit. You then jumped to incorrect conclusions, insulted me after I criticized your uncivil and unprofessional conduct and then stocked my editing history to an unrelated article. Your conduct in my view continues to be as I described, and I continue to hold your temperament to be ill-suited for editing here. I ask that you show humility and engage in much needed introspection and improve yourself if you intend to continue posting here. MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It was not a "minor clean up", and you know it. I don't have to pretend I don't also know it, so don't bother. FWIW I have Indiana on my watchlist, but you're not entitled to your contribution history being immune from scrutiny when one instance belies the clear possibility of more. That's why it's there. Remsense ‥ 论 04:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said, humility and introspection would serve you well, but I see no benefit in further interaction with you. Take care. MrJ567 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Another way of stating this would be to say that you didn't follow the date format rules (why doesn't really matter), used misleading/uninformative edit summaries experienced editors have seen countless times before with BCE->BC and CE->AD transforms like 'Minor clean up' and 'Minor grammar cleanup', and Remsense left you an informative message to help you avoid repeating these kinds of errors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No violation Remsense smartly reverted his last revert, so 3RR has not been violated. However, this has not been Wikipedians at their best. The IP's observation that the cited source does not mention this has not been addressed; instead this edit war broke out over something entirely procedural which is not even policy. Further discussion should, I think, focus on the issue around the sourcing of "equitable" and whether that word should be cited in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: A violation did occur. That self-revert happened long after the violation was reported here at WP:AN3. You cannot exempt a user from punishment just because they self-reverted long after being reported to try to avoid said punishment. Furthermore, Remsense has committed the same violation before. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are not a punishment, but a way to end and prevent disruption. By self-reverting, they recognized they erred, meaning the risk of further disruption is low. If you wish to pursue a grievance against another user's alleged broad pattern of behavior, that's not done here, but at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: @Daniel Case: That's what punishment does: Deterrence. By letting Remsense get away with this violation, you're breaking your own rules and encouraging similar behavior in the future.

Do you have any personal connection with Remsense? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's funny this happened on Justice, given how frivolous and easily superseded this line of argumentation is. In cases as transparently explicable as this, unmediated claims of conspiracy truly are the last refuge of the scoundrel. Bless. Remsense ‥ 论 21:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: @Daniel Case: To clarify, are you saying that if someone self-reverts long after being reported for a violation, they are exempt from any kind of consequence? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Given you have safely proven yourself a scholar of counting to 4, I recommend the remainder of Misplaced Pages:Edit warring to expand your horizons even further. Remsense ‥ 论 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This wasn't really helpful. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing to say beyond what I already said. If you have evidence that they have truly not recognized their errors, or have a long pattern of behavior that requires evaluation and action by the community, AN is the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

And no, I have no connection with this user. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:72.134.38.53 reported by User:190.167.0.99 (Result: Refer to AN/I)

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: 9

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

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

Declined This looks a little too complex for the scope of this noticeboard; I think AN/I would be better. But, since infoboxes are a contentious topic, I have put a notice to that effect on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MapReader reported by User:Notwally (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

10:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265942060 by Notwally (talk) It's a long-standing descriptor that has been in the article since early 2020, not that long after the film was released, that has been discussed extensively at least twice. You challenge it by going to the talk page."
04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265836072 by Notwally (talk) The page carries the full discussion from 2020 and 2023, which includes reference to the relevant guidelines and the necessary citations. You don’t just wade in a year later and change the article without resuming the talk."
21:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265821239 by Notwally (talk) There was no consensus for your removal, which referred to talk page discussions that didn’t exist, or at least weren’t contemporary"
14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Per RS, restoring the consensus position prior to the autumn edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1917 (2019 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) on Talk:1917 (2019 film) "/* Country? */ r"

Comments:

There is no consensus for this inclusion that this editor has restored 4 times in the past day, despite multiple prior talk page discussions. – notwally (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This editor has repeteadly endeavoured to force a change in an article that has twice been subject to lengthy prior discussion, ignoring all my requests for him to raise this on the talk page in the normal way. The diff he or she provides as an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is four and a half years old, and not from the same account name, and doesn't represent any attempt to resolve the issue since it was a contribution to a discussion that both left the article unchanged and has been superseded by a longer more recent one, in 2023, that established consensus. Pitching up four years later and trying to force a change after a discussion in which you took part - under a different account name - simply because you disagree with the outcome and without resuming the conversation or taking any account of a lengthy further discussion in which this editor apparently did not take part, is disruptive editing.

MapReader (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. This was a tough one to call. I thought seriously about declining it as all the discussion has been civil and it seems everyone is not only acting in good faith but reciprocally assuming it of the other parties (well, there is as of now only one on one side). Had I decided to decline, I would have done so on the basis of the edit being reverted to being rather old ... we have no policy guidance on how old that edit has to be; sometimes people here have cited year-old edits as the basis of their complaint. But at the same time I would commend MapReader's attention to WP:WEAKSILENCE: "... a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent", contrary to what you suggest here.

The underlying problem is, as IN notes here, is that this dispute falls neatly into a gap that FILMCOUNTRY fails to address, an issue as noted best resolved at the policy level. In the meantime, though, policy shortcomings cannot be allowed to justify edit wars, and in the meantime I read LOCALCONSENSUS as, by implication, deferring to the decision made here on the talk page.

MapReader is acting in good faith when they point out the lack of clear guidance. All the same ... while they are correct again to note the deficiency of citing the 2020 discussion as a basis for consensus when the 2023 discussion exists, I read that 2023 discussion as, in the noted absence of clarity at the policy level, establishing a consensus for following FILMCOUNTRY and leaving the countries of production out of the lede entirely while noting them in the infobox. MapReader's good-faith skepticism about Lumiere's methodology notwithstanding, it does not give them the right to revert the current lede.

Since, as it turned out, I have previously partially blocked MapReader before for similar conduct, and there has been an intervening sitewide block, I am doing it again, this time for longer. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Just to be clear, the lead was stable between 2020 and late summer this year, 2024, on the basis of the 2020 and 2023 discussions. It was the other editor - who appears to have contributed briefly to the 2020 discussion but under a different username - who intervened to make a change late this summer, without revisiting the talk page at all, and after I restored the status quo, has attempted to force this through today without discussion. While I realise I made one revert too many, his/her gaming 3RR to force through an edit that runs contrary to previous discussion, and citing a four year old comment as evidence of being willing to talk about it, was having a laugh, IMHO. MapReader (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, this is best addressed at the policy level. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Stormy160 reported by User:Talthiel (Result: Page protected)

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 have repeatedly tried to discuss it with the editor, posting a long response to each thing reverted in the article but to no avail, as the user read my response, disagreed, and then reverted back to their desired change, claiming I said something I did not. I have no idea hoe else to resolve this conflict because the table me and other editors built has had 0 issue until this one editor came in and started claiming issues existed with it (that don't exist by the way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talthiel (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is edit-warring. PS - We should have a link to the consensus being mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This user will not engage at all. I gave examples of what I was talking about, only to be called “dense”. They clearly just want full control over the page, nobody is allowed to edit their previous work. So yes, I did try to explain the precedent. I engaged on the talk page to no avail, which of course the user did not mention in their report. Stormy160 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Thesanas reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Page full-protected for three days)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Restoring the last version by User:Charliehdb"
07:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1265915480 by CNMall41 (talk): WP:ONUS applies to those who adds contents. I only replaced with reliable sources. Please stop WP:EDITWAR here"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

06:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pooja Hegde."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "/* GA article */"

Comments:

Additional warring is here and here. User erased previous warning from their talk page here and was warned numerous times about getting consensus on the talk page. Has been reverted by three different editors at this point but user still does not seem to get it. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I restored user:Charliehdb last edit . What is the mistake in restoring other users edits? I am here to expand and make this article with reliable sources. Why are you removing my edits with reliable sources and making this article with unreliable sources? Thesanas (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure Charliehdb is a WP:MEAT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me but I am not sure I would get much reception at SPI at this point with as many filings I have done recently on Indian film related UPE, SOCKS, and MEAT.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

They obviously do not care about WP:ONUS and likely UPE based on the continued edit war. I will let them continue to bludgeon and just roll back once they are blocked. Not worth the stress of trying to clean up the page when they don't seem to want to work within a collaborative community. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Page protected in full for three days, since while the submitted diffs do not constitute a violation as there aren't enough, we clearly can't let this go on. With the allegations of socking and meating, this really should go to AN/I ... or SPI, CNMall's reservations notwithstanding. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Stevencocoboy reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */ Hide it first because WP:HOCKEY"
05:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Please stop the edit war, I want to edit and update result only"
05:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Why? we can update the result which the events are finish"
05:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

05:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Stevencocoboy "/* Respecting consensus of your fellow editors */ new section"

Comments:

Look at his person's talk page. They have been warned over and over and over. Just at US Figure Skating Template they must be 10x reverts. I didn't report that because he promised me on my talk page he would be better, but it hasn't stopped him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it's because I don't know a consensus in WP:HOCKEY. I'm not American and my english is poor. I don't know we can't update a result and we need until the event was completed. Also I need using some times to translate what is talking about. After I translate it, I'm stopped edit in the page. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's the thing... you have been warned of this many times on multiple subjects, and you've been editing here for 10 years now. I count that you have been warned 11x since September 2024... most of which you didn't answer on your talk page. In October you were told by an editor "Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges." On December 24 I told you to "Self-revert or I WILL report you, and you will get blocked" for 8 reverts of Template:U.S. Figure Skating Championships. The same day I told you "You are also dangerously close to being blocked for your edits at "U.S. Figure Skating Championships." Yesterday a third editor told you to stop vandalizing "United States men's national ice hockey team". You were told about edit warring and to read up on consensus by editors at WP:Hockey. And then again a warning for "United States men's national junior ice hockey team".

This has gone on long enough. For your own good you need to be blocked a couple days to think about things and you really should be doing one edit and then move on to another topic. As soon as another editor reverts your new edit that should be a huge red ringing warning not to edit that page again until given the go-ahead by other editors on the talk page. This has to stop NOW before your privilege of editing here gets revoked. I was stern with you on your talk page about your 8 reverts, but you stopped and we came to a compromise, and I did not report you. Since then your talk page has been filled by five more minor and major warnings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I can promise stop editing about ice hockey pages in recent days and calm down more because I've make a controversial. I'm sorry again. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Declined with leave to re-report if reported user breaks his promise above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good enough for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Atsee reported by User:Dora the Axe-plorer (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266205860 by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) don't revert for no reason. If you disagree with my reasons for making an edit, you need to explain why."
Consecutive edits made from 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) to 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
1. 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266201041 by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) first one doesn't need to be a footnote; second is not necessary; third is not relevant; fourth doesn't even make sense."
2. 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266205410 by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) there is no citation where the fact tag has been placed. place the relevant citation there. that is all that needs doing."
Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC) to 13:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
1. 13:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "removed a lot of footnotes which are redundant. there is no need for a definition of a term when the term is linked."
2. 13:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "doesn't need a dictionary link"
3. 13:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Caldera collapse */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Your edits on Huaynaputina */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

15:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Footnotes */ Reply"

Comments:

Discussion at Talk:Huaynaputina#Footnotes, user repeatedly deleting footnotes without a valid reason on a Featured Article Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This user clearly wanted an edit war. Witness their utterly unhelpful edit summaries in their three reverts:

literally an inline right there - there is no inline "right there"; that's the precise reason I put a "fact" tag there.
Enough disruption, you are nearing 3R - no other interpretation than reverting for the sake of reverting is possible.
again, you cannot rv without discussing, you have already reached 3RR FYI - again reverting without any attempt to provide a rationale.

There was no need to file this report. There is discussion on the talk page. The user evidently wanted an edit war, and evidently wanted to make a fuss about it. Atsee (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It took you multiple reverts before you actually even replied to the talk discussion, even after explaining in the FA and your talk pages, you continued to insinuate you are in the right. While the discussion was active, after Mike Christie's reply, you continued your reverts. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I noticed the first revert didn't trigger the undo tag but the edit summary suggest a revert and subsequent changes before publishing. It would count to three reverts. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked along with their IPs for 3 months (Special:contributions/2A00:23C8:D30A:4600:0:0:0:0/64).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

User:36.228.143.128 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Declined)

User being reported: 36.228.143.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

13:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Matriarchy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP has persistently inserted extraordinary claims and violated the three-revert rule. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Declined as user has not edited since the last warning they got ten hours ago (of course, if they resume ...). I will leave a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: