Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:12, 4 November 2013 editEatsShootsAndLeaves (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,723 edits →Below is BBBAAACCC's argument, which includes his copy pastings of previously-published comments by other editors: wth?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:02, 30 December 2024 edit undoDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators224,507 edits →User:36.228.143.128 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: ): declined 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{pp-move|small=yes}}{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 227 |counter = 490
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>
}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; 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}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Rupert Sheldrake<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Alfonzo Green<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|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)
<!-- 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:
#
#


#1 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578603918&oldid=578582412 #
#2 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578918583&oldid=578855810
#3 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579545760&oldid=579538212
#4 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579642942&oldid=579641210


# - putting fake sources/infomation
Note that this user has been previously blocked TWICE for 3RR violations on this page, once in 2009, a second time earlier this month.
# - putting fake sources/infomation
# - putting fake sources/infomation


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Also note that {{user|Alfonzo Green}} is deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of a living person, in this case a distinguished professor ], that make Wiseman look like he is endorsing ] (or ] as is the ] we use around here). Not only is this extremely disingenuous but it is also a clear violation of ]. ] (]) 18:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
#


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


<!-- 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 /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>


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)
How ere you getting four reverts, that user has only edits to the article today? The last edit was four days ago. ] (]) 18:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Please see relevant discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Illegitimate_reversals. ] (]) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC) :{{u|TheHappiestEditor}}, please respond to these allegations. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am not sure what that section is going to show other than you obviously have NOTHING close to consensus for the content that you have been reinserting over a number of days. -- ] 19:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


:One of the two previous two blocks for warring at ] included "incivility", which reminds me of comment in the thread mentioned above. (I haven't diffed out the rest of the thread.) ] (]) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC) {{u|TheHappiestEditor}} has engaged in further edit-warring, with the same "Malayalam" language POV pushing, with {{u|19Arham}} . ] (]) 06:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{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)
:I see two instances of ] editing the article in the past 24 hours but they don't appear to be reverts. Others have, in fact, reverted whatever he writes. If he/she is responsible for violating some BLP concern, maybe that issue should be posted on that noticeboard. I don't see him/her edit warring here. In fact, it seems like editing on that article is overwhelmingly dominated by Editors posting in this complaint. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
:@] 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) ==
:: The talk page is "dominated" by editors who can't or won't understand policy and ] and ]. {{user|Liz}} pretends to take an impartial view on this but consensus is ]. The edit in question is an "attempt" to subvert POV by falsely attributing views to a person who doesn't hold those views. The edit warring is slow granted, but my understanding is that ] doesn't have to be in the same 24hrs, and IMHO slow edit warring is reasonable cause for a longer ban, and the problem of incivility remains. ] (]) 21:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|w}}. Given {{U|Alfonzo Green}}'s history, he should consider himself '''warned''' that if he continues to edit the article without a clear consensus for his edits, he risks being blocked, even if he reverts only once. That said, I have some advice for other editors who have commented here. Alfonzo did not breach ]. Barney's understanding that it doesn't have to be in the same 24 hours is wrong. I think he is confusing edit warring with a violation of 3RR. Next time you file a report, pay attention to the diffs and disclose that this is not a 3RR violation you are reporting. As for incivility, all I see is sometimes heated discussion. I wouldn't label it incivility. All editors should avoid commenting on other editors and focus only on content; very few do, alas.--] (]) 00:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
] Please reconsider your warning. Not only did I not break the three revert rule, but my edit in no way represents Wiseman as a supporter of pseudoscience, as ] alleges. Here's the edit that triggered his complaint: "In a subsequent interview, Wiseman stated that his experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's and that more experiments were needed to definitively overturn Sheldrake's conclusion that Jaytee had a psychic link with its owner." It's clear from this quote that Wiseman disagrees with Sheldrake's view (which Barney falsely implies to be pseudoscience). Barney's complaint is entirely bogus and should result in a ruling of no violation. ] (]) 19:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
:You have 186 edits to article space, over half of which have been to the Sheldrake article. I suggest you broaden your contributions to Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
::Guess what, ]? You make a lot more edits when they keep getting reverted. I haven't run into that problem on other pages, but then most pages haven't been hijacked by a clique of editors determined to impose their POV. Telling me to go work on another page doesn't resolve the issue on this one. ] (]) 01:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::: ] is right. Neutral or Editors sympathetic to Sheldrake have either been driven off or they are confined to the Talk Page. It's exhausting trying to read that page. There are probably less than half a dozen Editors who are allowed to edit the main article. Anyone else who tries to edit the article, like Alfonzo, will find themselves in an edit war or be resigned to being reverted. I thought it would have simmered down by now (this all started in September) but it hasn't. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|103.84.130.238}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|ANZAC Mounted Division}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|RoslynSKP<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff|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:'''
Previous version reverted to:
#
#


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
:This edit reinstated citations to the Official British history to the first two versions of the division's name and the link to the contents page of the official history on the AWM web site. --] (]) 01:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
#
:This is not a revert - its an expansion of the article --] (]) 01:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
#
:This edit reinstated the citations to the Official British history regarding the first two versions of the division's name. --] (]) 02:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
and
#
:Here Jim Sweeney cut the information which expanded the article (referred to above). --] (]) 02:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
#
:This edit reinstated the link to the Official Australian history contents page on the AWM web site. --] (]) 02:04, 1 November 2013 (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: No template warning but commented at ]


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


Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{AN3|n}}. I'm going off-wiki and don't have time to review this properly, but glancing at it, my sense is that the two of you are having your own private edit war.--] (]) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
::The issue was also discussed on my talk page here --] (]) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC) :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)
:::Jim Sweeney mistook a citation which linked to the AWM web site, with a cite to a particular page, and it has taken me a number of reverts to finally clarify the issue here . --] (]) 01:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
*:@] Sadly, the IP is now doing the exact same thing over at the article ] (]). —&nbsp;] ] 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} Note: some of these issues are being discussed here: ]. ] (]) 13:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
*::Blocked, thanks. ] (]) 16:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Due to a slight change in the naming of the topic discussion this can now be found at ]. ] (]) 03:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|myriad}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Angelo Rules}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Til_Eulenspiegel}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Johnny test person}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Previous version reverted to: , including some edits to the section on China and East Asia.


Diffs of the user's reverts: '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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: See below


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


Re: the talk page, there was only one editor, so I tried to resolve the conflict in the and instead. I was ''also'' writing a recap of my points and the relevant policies on the talk page but kept getting distracted by reverts and (now) abuse of process and warnings, so I came here to fill this out first.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
In short, dude is falling back on page ownership and feels; lowering the defcon; and refusing to interact or address my points and good faith or any of the relevant policies, which have been noted repeatedly. Ban is probably a bit much, but if a third party could talk him down, it'd be nice. (I've never done this before, so sorry if there is someplace else I should've gone for that. Lemme know.)&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (]) ] (]) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:You gotta love it when an editor keeps edit warring in his bold edit based on systemic bias, edit wars it in three or four times, wouldn't discuss on the talkpage, then tries to get the other editor reverting to the status quo 3 times blocked! ] /]/ 13:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
* {{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)
:This is also deceptive, there has been no further reverting since the warning. ] /]/ 13:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
*{{replyto|LlywelynII}}, regarding these four removals of the same content ( ), is there ] why ''you'' should not be blocked under ]? --] (]) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
*:Apart from that not being 3 reverts? There's the policies the material violates, the fact they're completely unsourced, the banner on the page saying unsourced material will be removed, and the observation that I made repeated good faith efforts to bring Til into a conversation about what was going on - to which he responded with reverts, ad homs, and warnings.<br><br>Sorry for your issues with {{tl|...}} and I'll take a page ban if people really have the opinion that ''I'' was the one edit warring, but none of that changes the fact that I was the one constructively editing the page, that the material in question was unsourced, and (even if it is accurate, which Wiktionary doubts) it belongs at Wiktionary until there's some more context to it.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
:::There's a broader perspective to this, see ] where ] wrote " Without even looking further back than today, I found that you have been edit warring on Myriad and on Cuneiform. Any further edit warring at all, on any page, at any time, may lead to an extended block, without further warning." ] (]) 07:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Automotive industry in China}} <br />
::::Llywelyn, it's not wiktionary that doubts these are the honest-to-god Hebrew, Albanian, Afrikaans, Mongolian etc. words for "myriad", it's YOU, because your mind has been softened to the point where it accepts wiktionary as the ultimate authority on all things - so if it isn't in wiktionary yet, there must be no such thing, eh? Once again, if there are editors who speak these modern languages with tens or hundreds of millions of speakers - regardless of how obscure YOU may find them - then we accept on good faith that they aren't making up words to fool you, just as we don't demand proof and references to be convinced that ''fleur'' means flower in French. Why do you keep writing things into the policy that have never been there? ] /]/ 13:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Infinty 0}}
:::] states "An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a '''single page'''—whether involving the same or different material—within a '''24-hour period'''. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." To my mind, the removal of ''exactly the same content'' four times within one hour counts as four reverts. These are reverts because they undid the actions of other editors, even though the actual content removed was first added some time ago. --] (]) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
{{Archive top|This is not the article's talk page.--] (]) 17:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kingdom of Yugoslavia}} <br />
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|DIREKTOR}}
#
#
#


<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#


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


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This issue appears to be clear edit warring and POV-pushing. It may be called ahistorical revisionism or original research that is aimed to projects modern ethnic distinctions onto the past. There is no doubt, this editor is not being civil in this dispute and has removed even my warning to discuss the issue on his own talk page. There is missing real discussion on the article's talk page. The user didn't provide a single source in support of his agenda. I think the editor refuses to collaborate and continues simply to edit war. ] (]) 13:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
*{{ec}} {{AN3|n}}. {{reply|Jingiby}} So you get into an extended edit war with {{U|DIREKTOR}} over ethnic-related content and you come here to report the other party? Shouldn't both of you be blocked?--] (]) 13:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
::Pretty much. Brilliant move, isn't it? I guess he thought nobody was going to check, or that if he reports first he somehow gets away with it. In my defense, I was rolling back to a stable ''status quo'' before Jingiby introduced his Bulgarian-nationalist slant. The man refuses to accept that we don't use contemporary terminology, but modern-day terms blah blah... In short, this is one of those obscure Balkans conflicts that can't really be solved in any way other than through edit-war: nobody along the entire DR process gives a damn, and I'm stuck rolling back various ethnic POV-pushers that regularly pop-up with their ideas on how everybody is Bulgarian/Serbian/Albanian/Bosnian/Croatian,'' etc etc..''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
::If you've gotta, fire away (*lights cigarette and ties blindfold*). <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 14:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
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)


: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)
On a contrary, the issue is not so complicated. You was not rolling back to the stable version Direktor, but to the unsourced POV added without any comment by ] (]) . ] (]) 15:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
::All my edit explanations are in the relevant ]. If any ] is missing in my edits to the article, please feel free to provide diffs. - ] (]) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
: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) ==
*{{AN3|c}} I was asked to comment on the matter. From what I can see {{U|James Lindberg}} have removed some sourced information, without giving a reason. Also the same user have taken information from a source for 1918 population (non census information), and copied it to the section of the official census results from 1921. {{U|Jingiby}} have reverted that and did few more edits, which {{U|DIREKTOR}} have reverted, claiming that version after {{U|James Lindberg}} edits is the "stable version" (which does not correspond to the truth). The rest is just usual edit warring. ] (]) 17:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Hephthalite–Gokturk raids of 614–616}} <br />
I don't mean to start a content discussion here, but I feel I must add something to StanProg's review. is a link to the relevant (ignored) DRN thread. The central issue is Jingiby's removal of reference to the ] ethnicity prior to its formal institutionalization in the aftermath of WWII. This is essentially like removing reference to ] being "]" by a "Pisan nationalist" because there was no such formal nation at the time, and supporting that with a slew of sources that explain how the Italian nation was not officially declared until much, ''much'' later. Essentially what he's doing is introducing contemporary (Interbellum) terminology, instead of referring to these people by what they're known today. He's been doing this all over the project for a very long time. Its basically in-line with ] ideology that claims the modern-day Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. Its damaging to the encyclopedia, and I tried to stop it here. This is the result. As I said, noone replies to DR attempts in these sort of subjects (I know this because of my 50,000 edits on such topics, ''e.g.'' the ignored DRN thread). <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 19:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|وقت الصلاة}}
*{{AN3|c}} @{{U|DIREKTOR}} When you do a reverts, you should be very careful what part of the edits you revert. In the current situation you've reverted a disputed (by you) information as well as edits which are usually classified as vandalism (census results and exact quote for 1918). Being a Macedonian Bulgarian (by origin) I haven't intervened in your discussion with {{U|Jingiby}} because of a conflict of interests. Trying to help solving this dispute, I can point that in all the of censuses before 1913 (Ottoman) and the Greek, Serbian, German, etc statistics, these people were identified as "Bulgarian", in the period 1913-1931 they were called "South Serbs" (officially - which can be seen in 1921 census - they are part of the "Serbs & Croats" - by mother tongue), in 1931 census as "Yugoslavs" and since 1944 they are called "Macedonians". What you're trying to do is to push the 1944+ nation name to 1918 people. I think you can both agree with "Macedonian Slavs" i.e. "Slavs from the region of Macedonia" as a common name, or the other official terms based on the period for which you're writing and continue with constructive editing of the article. --] (]) 05:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::Sure, yes, I agree... <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 10:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::No problems. With one exeption only: Chernozemski was Bulgarian not only by self-identification, but also by place of birth. ] (]) 17:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: HistorNE warned) ==
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Exodus of Iran's Jews}} <br />


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


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)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 18:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:* Also '''ECP protected''' (I edit-conflicted with Bbb23 here) I was going to block the editor concerned, but instead I have reverted their latest edits and ECPd the article; they can discuss their edits on the talk page rather than edit-warring when they are unblocked. ] 18:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:*:Big thanks to you both! ] (]) 21:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Justice}} <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Remsense}}
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''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 ~~~~ -->
An Arbitration decision placed all articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict under a 1RR limitation. It has been clarified that this includes topics related to Israel-Iran relation (which this article clearly is0 here: . The relevant comment reads "Also, there was a previous case at AE where someone was editing about Iran-Israel relations. Iran's government refers to Israel as 'the Zionist entity'. I would interpret an I/P topic ban as excluding *all* of the edits and topics listed by Sean.hoyland in this complaint" - said topics being " Israel–Iran proxy conflict or Iran–Israel relations"
This editor was just here a day ago for edit warring, and got off with a warning. It may be time to step it up a notch. ] (]) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:] was blocked this September for edit warring. An edit warring report against ] was recently (yesterday?) closed with a warning, which as we can see did not accomplish its task. I advised ] to revert but s/he has refused. --'']] ]'' 16:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
::These are actually related to their edits on a different article than my report. ] (]) 16:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Ah, didn't realize that. So he's edit warring on multiple pages the day after he was issued a formal warning. Awesome. --'']] ]'' 16:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
::::No I didn't refused, I misunderstood you. It's reverted now. --] (]) 16:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:First, Iran is irrelevant to Israeli-Arab conflict (not Arab country, neither participated in their wars), and Persian Jews are irrelevant to Iran-Israel relations. Citations from article , in American '']'', written by David Yeroushalmi (Jewish Israeli professor from Tel Aviv University):
:* ''Moreover, because of a variety of historical conditions inside Persia, mainly the absence of state-wide persecution or popular harassment of Jews, freedom of movement and immigration from and into Persia during the years 1948-79 (and actual possibilities for immigration from Persia since the establishment of the Islamic Republic), the Persian immigrants who moved to Israel ordinarily did so out of their own free will. These immigrants, as well as those who settled in Mandatory Palestine, did not perceive themselves as victims, refugees or displaced individuals whose immigration was imposed on them by events or forces beyond their personal control.''
:* ''Since the early 1960s until the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran in February 1979, there was an average annual immigration of some 1,000 to 1,500 souls from Persia. The average did not increase in the wake of the Islamic Revolution, which was followed by a major wave of Jewish immigration from Persia to various destinations, chief among them the United States and Europe.''
:This is completely apolitical topic which your pal ] has tried to connect with "Israeli-Arab conflict" or alleged "post-revolutional persecutions", but according sources above it's pure nonsense. Regarding his pamphlet I already explained ] and ]. Even after explanations, he engaged himself in edit wars without any discussion or summaries (except insults like "disruptive editing"). I consider this as game of edit-war called "two mouses against one cat" to keep POV. --] (]) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
*HistorNE was warned by Kipa Aduma that the article falls under the Arbitration decision, and I agree that it does. The lead of the article, rightly or wrongly, suggests so. Thus, the 1RR restriction applies; HistorNE is free to appeal this, at ]. Now, it is clear to me that, arbitration set aside, HistorNE is editing (redirecting) against consensus, and is taking an unfair advantage by claiming that the Arb restriction does not apply; Greyshark and Kipa Aduma have reverted only once. So I am going to undo HistorNE's revert, with the warning that any further revert will result in a block. They can take the issue up on the talk page and achieve consensus there; alternately, ] is a solution, or ]. But on the note of that talk page, I take serious exception to HistorNE's heading, . "Propaganda" is already a non-neutral term, and "Israeli editor" is simply a personal attack; see ]. If HistorNE wants to play collaboratively, they will change that heading. In addition, the next such comment will result in a block for incivility/personal attack, as will the next revert to the redirect without consensus on the talk page or elsewhere. ] (]) 16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*The scope of ] is an important issue and the AE case Kipa Aduma, Esq. cites is one example where admins have interpreted 'broadly construed' to include things like the Israel–Iran proxy conflict and Iran–Israel relations. I think there have been similar clarifications concerning Israel/Iran when ARBPIA topic banned editors have, from an admin's perspective, strayed into the fuzzy zone that defines the scope of topic bans (although I can't recall whether it's been at AE, editor/admin talk pages or perhaps both). Whatever the merits or relevance of that argument to this case with respect to ARBPIA 1RR restrictions (and I don't know whether HistorNE is currently ARBPIA topic banned), that argument should not be made by a sockpuppet of a block evading topic banned editor. Kipa Aduma, Esq's edit history, their first edit being a revert of Dalai lama ding dong (who went on to become a sockmaster) and the proximity of many other edits to NoCal's perceived foes like ZScarpia, Dlv999 and Nishidani suggests that it is likely to be another NoCal sock. Edit warring reports like this should be filed by established editors in good standing who are allowed to edit here. There was nothing stopping Brewcrewer or any other editor who is allowed to be here from filing this report. Socks don't need to be here, are not allowed to be here, there's no excuse for them being here and rewarding their actions is counterproductive. HistorNE should play nice, but why should he play nice if Kipa Aduma, Esq is breaking a rule to be here ? When an editor thinks someone else is breaking a rule, any rule, they are far less likely to follow the rules themselves. This kind of futile tit for tat is endemic in the topic area, partly thanks to the corrosive effect of the presence of sockpuppets. And just in case anyone wonders why I haven't simply filed an SPI report instead of saying these things here, see ] for a currently stalled SPI investigation into other suspected NoCal socks. Apparently SPI does not work effectively, and given the amount of sockpuppetry it's easy to understand why. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 17:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


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


:{{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)
Note: He hasn't stopped, . As you can see , he continues to push pov, without trying to reach a consensus with other users. ] (]) 12:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:As a related side note, it does not seem that the IP editor really cares to follow ] in this instance. - ] (]) 00:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


Add to the above the following ] by Remsense on the article's talk page: . ] (]) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've provided verified at , without removing doubious sources. You didn't verify anything, you simply . Considering threats and false reports, it's more then obivous your not interested in improving article. --] (]) 13:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Coltsfan}} A sockpuppet ] is opened regarding ].] (]) 13:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


: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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
::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.
::] (]) 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">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</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">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</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)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Refer to AN/I) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Attleboro}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Crunchyroll}} <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|72.134.38.53}}


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


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


<!-- 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: Ongoing discussion . Attleboro began the discussion only after being by another editor.


<u>Comments:</u> <br />
To be clear, this isn't a bright-line 3RR violation, as Attleboro reverted 4 times in a 29-hour period, but I do believe it's worthy of a block. Not only does it appear to be gaming the 3RR system, but Attleboro was warned repeatedly and that violation of the bright-line rule isn't a prerequisite to sanctions, and after being forced to the talk page he/she then re-reverted against consensus (, , and ) while the talk page discussion was ongoing. (On top of that, it's pretty clear from the discussion that Attleboro refuses to learn basic concepts about ] and ].) --] (]) 23:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:There's more going on here than Fleischman mentions. First, these aren't reverts to the exact same text. Rather, Attleboro is trying out different formulations in an attempt to get a reliably-sourced view onto the article. In particular, he moved from an unattributed statement to an attributed one, which shows an attempt to compromise.


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:Second, as I point out on the talk page, some of the edit comments in the reverts are simply inaccurate. The same thread shows Fleischman and the others who reverted taking on a confrontational attitude and refusing to cooperate with Attleboro's attempts.


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:Based on this, I suggest instead protecting the article to force these people to listen to Attleboro instead of reverting each attempt he makes to hit the moving target that they present.


<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)
:Please note that I haven't edited this article in a while, so I'm not part of the edit war here. My hands are clean. ] (]) 02:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:{{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)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for a week) ==
::#It doesn't matter that the reverts aren't the exact same text. They all include the same material that was objected to.
::#Characterizing Attleboro's edit warring as "an attempt to compromise" is about as distorted as it comes. The edits speak for themselves. Qualifying a quote with "evidence from economists of..." doesn't come close to proper attribution. Plus, MilesMoney's reconstruction is belied by the lack of any offer of compromise by Attleboro in the talk page discussion. (Nowhere did he/she say something like, "But I did attribute the quote.")
::#Strange that MilesMoney is accusing me of being combative and not listening to Attleboro; the talk page discussion shows pretty clearly in my view that I've bent over backwards to entertain Attleboro's arguments, but that he/she has ignored mine. But this is, frankly, completely irrelevant; if I ''had'' been combative, it still wouldn't have justified edit warring.
::--] (]) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1917 (2019 film)}}
You might want to take a look at what DrFleischman did and suggest less wiki-lawyering on his part. ] (]) 14:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:Pray tell, what did I do there... and how is it relevant to this? --] (]) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
:This is totally irrelevant to the DrFlieschman's report of edit warring. Please take it elsewhere. –] (] · ]) 04:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|MapReader}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Alabama State University}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Olde Hornet}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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. -->
# {{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."
# {{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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|952190013|00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) on Talk:1917 (2019 film)}} "/* Country? */ r"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#
#
#


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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:


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)
<!-- 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:


:: 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.
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
:] (]) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that I have to ask for this editor to be blocked but he or she doesn't seem to be responding to messages posted on his or her Talk page while he or she persists in deleting material without participating in discussion with other editors. It's possible that he or she simply hasn't noticed the notification icon (it's now rather small and tucked away in the very top of the screen) so perhaps a block would be sufficient to get his or her attention...? ] (]) 00:22, 2 November 2013 (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)
:I've blocked for 12 hours. This will hopefully get the point across. ] 03:08, 2 November 2013 (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)
::It didn't; he or she has continued to without any discussion whatsoever. In fairness, he or she may not have even noticed the 12-hour block (if we can safely assume that he or she doesn't see the red message icon). A longer block that he or she can't miss may be necessary. ] (]) 00:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::Like I said, this is best addressed at the policy level. ] (]) 18:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


== Various IPs reported by ] (Result: Protected) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|World Organization of the Scout Movement}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2024 Wisconsin Senate election}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' IP POV-pusher '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Stormy160}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Please lock down ] to edits from IPs for a while. A troll tried to pick a fight with our admin on the talkpage, luckily the admin didn't take the bait. So the IP went on to the article, adding assumed "facts", miscapitalizing and mispunctuating things, with no cite. Naturally I reverted. A decade-old article with dozens of '''registered''' users watching isn't going to be that replete with mistakes that a user who doesn't bother to sign in or register will catch things the rest of us haven't.--] (]) 14:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
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:
*{{AN3|p}}. I've semi-protected the article for a week as two IPs were involved. {{U|Kintetsubuffalo}}, you should have either filed this report properly against the last IP or you should have taken the issue to ].--] (]) 15:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:The second IP was the one making the 3RR edits, and as to RFPP, I'll know for next time.--] (]) 15:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|World Organization of the Scout Movement}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kintetsubuffalo}}


'''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> <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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
Previous version reverted to:
: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) ==
<!-- 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:
#
#
#
#


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Pooja Hegde}}
<!-- 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:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Thesanas}}
]


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1266008901|17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Restoring the last version by User:Charliehdb"
# {{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:'''
Despite entries on article Talk page, Gadget850 and Kintetsubuffalo engaged in edit warring by repeated complete reversions and Kintetsubuffalo makes his intention to revert any edits clear - "I will continue to revert all IP changes that look similar".]
# {{diff2|1265915618|06:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Reversions by Kintetsubuffalo:
# {{diff2|1265915247|06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* GA article */"
:08:58, 2 November 2013
:13:14, 2 November 2013‎
:13:50, 2 November 2013‎
:13:58, 2 November 2013‎


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Kintetsubuffalo justified his reversion by claiming the edits lacked cited references but deleted considerable links within the article, to other articles and to sources as well as references to sources.


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)
Having reverted all contributions, Gadget850 belatedly edited the article to include changes to dates which were the same as those he and Kintetsubuffalo had reverted but Kintetsubuffalo did not revert Gadget850's changes. The two users work in conjunction to revert any changes made by other users and dominate the article.] (]) 17:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}}. See above report (article semi-protected).--] (]) 17:37, 2 November 2013 (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? ] (]) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected) ==
::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) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ender's Game (film)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|71.79.64.188}} and {{userlinks|71.79.66.64}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|United States men's national junior ice hockey team}}
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# by 71.79.64.188
#
#
#
# by 71.79.66.64


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Stevencocoboy}}
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:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{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:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Anonymous user keeps making POV edits to the reception section. Began as 71.79.64.188, after several warnings and comment on talkpage suddenly user 71.79.66.64 shows up and makes the same edit. Since they are in the same IP-range I think it is safe to assume it is the same user who very cleverly reset his router. --] (]) 21:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}. I've semi-protected the article for three days.--] (]) 23:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Demographics of atheism}}
# {{diff2|1266124147|05:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Stevencocoboy}} "/* Respecting consensus of your fellow editors */ new section"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|GrunterVonHaart207$!}}


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


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 the user's reverts:
: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)
# {{diff2|580010153|14:50, 3 November 2013 (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".
# {{diff2|580009318|14:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|580008761|14:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|580007109|14:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|580006254|14:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|580005355|14:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""


::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)
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
:::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)
# {{diff2|580010465|14:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
::::{{AN3|d}} with leave to re-report if reported user breaks his promise above. ] (]) 18:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Huaynaputina}}


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


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Warned several other times by {{ping|AndyTheGrump}} and {{ping|Dougweller}} as well. ] (]) 14:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==
# {{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 edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Ulla Lindström}}
# {{diff2|1266205992|15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Your edits on Huaynaputina */ new section"
;User being reported: {{userlinks|GrunterVonHaart207$!}}


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1266206482|15:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Footnotes */ Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|579997071|12:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|579999289|12:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|580004663|13:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|580006839|14:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff2|580008904|14:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""


Discussion at ], user repeatedly deleting footnotes without a valid reason on a Featured Article ''''']''''' (]) 16:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
:This user clearly wanted an edit war. Witness their utterly unhelpful edit summaries in their three reverts:
# {{diff2|580005536|14:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
:* - there is no inline "right there"; that's the precise reason I put a "fact" tag there.
# {{diff2|580005907|14:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Ulla Lindström */ new section"
:* - 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) ==
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Matriarchy}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|36.228.143.128}}
;<u>Comments:</u>
*{{AN3|b| 24 hours}}. Clear 3RR. ] ] 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
;Page: {{pagelinks|Importance of religion by country ‎}}
# {{diff2|1266181569|13:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
;User being reported: {{userlinks|GrunterVonHaart207$!}}
# {{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 edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
;Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1266184214|13:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|580002171|13:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=580002601|diff=580003092|label=Consecutive edits made from 13:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC) to 13:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|580002957|13:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|580003092|13:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} ""


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|580005536|14:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|580005907|14:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} "/* Ulla Lindström */ new section"
# {{diff2|580010877|14:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)}} "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (])"


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


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

:{{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)
;<u>Comments:</u>

Warrants more than a 24 hour block. ] (]) 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Blocked 24 hours by ]. ] (]) 03:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Iranian peoples}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BBBAAACCC}}

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:

*BBBAAACCC is not only disruptive, an edit-warrior, a POV-pusher and a violator of 3RR, he seems to be prejudice towards certain people and is attacking me on my talk page ... ... He keeps adding questionable images of ] (possible ], ] or ]) into ] article, which is not only unsourced POV but plainly wrong and disruptive. For example, ] is an Indian woman of ethnic Pathan background and he decides to add her to Iranian peoples. There is no such evidence that she is of Iranian stock, absolutely none. My side of the argument is that Pathans are of unknown origin so their images shouldn't be added in Iranian peoples article, and when someone does this it's forcing pro-Iranian POV on the world when all the leading experts of the world (scholars, historians, researchers and Pashtuns themselves), do not know the origin of Pathans, it's concluded that Pathans are a confederation of various tribes of different background who formed one nation. As an educated guess, this likely includes Turkic, Indian, Arab, and others in addition to Iranian peoples.

*In addition to being disruptive and etc, I'm almost certain that he's wrongfully abusing multiple accounts. A name like ''BBBAAACCC'' with only few disruptive edits and yet behaving like an experienced editor smells like a fish to me. He's now trying to change his English writing to reduce my suspecion. This all began on 10 October when an Iranian editor ({{user|Mani1}}, who has been suspected in the past of abusing multiple accounts ) expressed his POV by making Pashtun people an Iranian peoples group but this was reverted. After Mani1, {{user|Krakkos}} appeared at Pashtun people article and expressed the same pro-Iranian POV An IP from Ontario, Canada, then appeared at the same page and aggressively lowered the population of Pashtuns in India, then that person behind the Ontario IP created {{user|Observerpashtun}} but stopped editing after I suspected him of being a sock. This IP assigned to someone in Turkey behaves alot like BBBAAACCC, it writes "regards" before signature, has very recently added "Pashtun" as the nationality of Indian born, Indian actress Zarine Khan, and also very recently edited Iranian peoples.--] (]) 15:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

===Below is BBBAAACCC's argument, which includes his copy pastings of previously-published comments by other editors===
*Pashtuns are not Indo-Aryan, they are Iranian. And also you are edit-warrior, not me Indian guy ] (]) 16:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

* is our discussion on his talk page. No comment:

Read the article Zarine Khan and her "Early life" in the article. She is a Pathan/Pashtun(Iranic) girl who live in India, not ethnic Indian. Regards.BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I suspect that you're a disruptive serial sockpuppeteer and an exteme POV pusher so I went and reported your action at . Secondly, why out of all the people you selected 2 famous Indians (Zarine Khan and Sher Shah Suri) and also Mir Wais Hotak (Ghilzai Pashtun) to represent Iranian peoples? No where did they ever claim to be Iranian and also there's not source that they are part of the Iranian peoples.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
You are laugable:) There are source in the article(source 4). BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you think that I am a sockpupperter, this page is for it. BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Appears to me like you just experienced a panic attack. If you continue with your extreme POV pushing and disruption then I'll be forced to email a few admins who can determine whether you're abusing multiple accounts or not. You only have a few edits but act like an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, isn't that fishy? A name like BBBAAACCC itself suggests sockpuppetry.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are laugable. I've an account in other wikis, not just English wikipedia. That's the reason why I "act like an experienced Misplaced Pages editor". As I told you, if you think that I am using multiple accounts, you can complain it in here.If you continue harass me, I am going to complain you. BBBAAACCC (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

] (]) 16:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

:Also I've discussed that issue with this user in an another . ] : (]) 16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please look at the imagebox in the Iranian peoples article because I have reasons to believe that an extreme POV pushing and very likely serial sockpuppeteer is adding images of famous non-Iranian people. She is disruptive and often attacks other editors. . She's also very likely abusing multiple accounts. Some of her socks are probably BBBAAACCC (talk · contribs); Krakkos (talk · contribs); Observerpashtun (talk · contribs); Mani1 (talk · contribs) but there may be more. If this may help, she's appearantly editing from Toronto, Ontario, Canada . Also see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mani1/Archive. Based on behaviour, POVs, area of interest in Misplaced Pages, style of English and everything else they all seem to be connected very well, trying to Iranianize everyone and everything.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I've explained dozen time but you do not want to understand I think. Why don't you look at ur message page? Zarine Khan is an ethnic Pathan(Iranic) person who live in India. Therefore she is Iranic and anyone can add her to Iranian people. So you are the only POV pusher here. BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The accounts that you have mentioned above are not belong to me. Admins can investigate it. In addition, I want to an explanation about your reverts and edit war despite the sources. Regards.BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no such evidence of this Indian woman being of Iranian race. I watch pages all day long and I'm sure that you're using multiple accounts for edit-warring. You adding Pashtun figures into Iranian peoples article proves alot.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As I told, admins can investigate whether I use multiple accounts or not. It is so simple. And there are evidence, you can see it in the article(Zarine Khan-Early life). If you cannot see it you can read thish BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit: "... Asked about whether it was a risk casting Zarine Khan, the debutant from the UK, Khan says: 'She's a Pathan girl who speaks Hindi and Urdu well and was spectacular in the screen test. It was pure luck.' " BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
All the leading researchers around the world have concluded that the origins of Pathans is UNKNOWN. You're the only one assuming that they are part of Iranian peoples and adding their images in Iranian peoples article. That makes you an extreme POV pusher.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There's no doubt in my mind that you're disruptively abusing multiple accounts.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have not attempted to engage with BBBAAACCC on either the article's talk page or the user's talk page. This is a content dispute, and as such you must WP:DISCUSS the dispute at those locations, not here; AN/I does not deal with content disputes. If you can't reach a resolution that way, then WP:DRN is the next step. As for accusations of sockpuppetry, that's what WP:SPI is for. There's nothing here that's appropriate for AN/I at this point. Accordingly this is being closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

'''No comment'''. ] (]) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

* is his edit-war. ] (]) 16:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

* race represents . An Afghan/Pathan man represents Iranids. In addition, Pathan language classified as an Iranian language. So it is not my POV-push. Conversely, this user who is complaining is a real POV-pusher here. ] (]) 16:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

* "Being dark skinned" is not a shame or inferiority. So there is no personal attack. I wanted to say that Indians are dark-skinned and some of them-just like this user- feel shame because of their skin colour and want to be white. That's the reason why he is trying to label ] and other non-Indian whites as "Indian" despite the sources. The actress is an ethnic Pashtun who live in India and Pashtuns are Iranians. Therefore there is no reason not to adding her into ]. It is so normal. But this user's behavior is "abnormal". ] (]) 22:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
: What does the above pure-and-total-BS have to do with the fact that you edit-warred? Even if you're "right", it's NEVER permitted <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 22:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:02, 30 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

    @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)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Additionally, when I notified Remsense with the appropriate user warning for this personal attack, they replied with get the hell off my page. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. Add it to the list. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would like to back up the complaint against Remsense here, as he also recently failed to assume good faith in edits I posted and attacked me personally as an editor. He then followed me and deleted another edit I had posted on an unrelated page afterward after I questioned his conduct on his talk page (which he then deleted.) I question whether his temperament is suitable to be a moderator on Misplaced Pages.
    MrJ567 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is no such thing as a moderator on Misplaced Pages, Remsense is a Normal Editor like you and not an Admin Either. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. I stand by my comments on his temperament and conduct regardless.
    MrJ567 (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    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)

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

    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)

    Page: 1917 (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 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."
    2. 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."
    3. 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"
    4. 14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC) "Per RS, restoring the consensus position prior to the autumn edit"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1917 (2019 film)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 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)

    Page: 2024 Wisconsin Senate election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Stormy160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    I 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)

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

    Page: Pooja Hegde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 17:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Restoring the last version by User:Charliehdb"
    2. 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:

    1. 06:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pooja Hegde."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 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)

    Page: United States men's national junior ice hockey team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 05:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* IIHF World Junior Championship */ Hide it first because WP:HOCKEY"
    2. 05:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Please stop the edit war, I want to edit and update result only"
    3. 05:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "Why? we can update the result which the events are finish"
    4. 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:

    1. 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)

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

    Page: Huaynaputina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 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."
    2. 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."
    3. 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:

    1. 15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Your edits on Huaynaputina */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 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:
    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)

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

    Page: Matriarchy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 13:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 10:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 22:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 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: