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

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

Revision as of 07:24, 4 July 2015 editHandpolk (talk \| contribs)1,588 edits →User:Handpolk reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:59, 28 December 2024 edit undo2001:569:7fea:2900:d124:450:c36:af27 (talk) →User:Remsense reported by User:2001:569:7FEA:2900:D124:450:C36:AF27 (Result: )
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
	<noinclude>{{pp~~-move-indef~~}}{{/Header}}]		<!--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 = ~~286~~		\|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' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Giganotosaurus}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PaleoFile}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kargil War}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|KnightWarrior25}}

			'''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. -->
			#
			#
			#
			#

	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:''' (regarding another now-dormant edit war on a related page)
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	—] <sup>] </sup> 17:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' N/A, did not revert and talked directly to editor instead
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	It is necessary to note that ] was stick to one point an is involve in an edit war. Even I've mentioned him on the talk page but instead he keep on editing the article ] I've just reverted him twice because his edit was unconstructive ] he neither replied in the ] nor did he paid attention to the dispute which is already solved and instead he keep on editing the article and was stick to one point which is already solved long ago by administrators and patrollers ] (]) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) -->
	: I have commented on the page to quite an extent, even gave my comments on the RfC. The discussion is still open, there's an RfC which is still open. No consesus has been reached. You were warned twice to wait for the RfC to conclude and then edit, but you paid no heed. You participated at the talk page twice and thought other editors have accepted what you say? Sorry, sir, it does not happen like this on Wiki. You were even given ample comments to explain you to stop reverting and editing a topic/info which is still under discussion and have been there sine weeks, but to no avail, I had no other choice ut to report you for your undue reverts.—] <sup>] </sup> 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
	*'''5th revert''' now within ~ 24 hrs... obviously way beyond 3RR. The two net edits he is making are 1) change of out come to "Indian Victory" on which RFC is under way and the out come is supposed to stay as it was before the editwar / dispute per ] and 2) removal of information about peak 5353 which was compromised to have atleast a mention in the article per ]. Infact the user is citing me to have agreed to removal of this information while I never did. Infact the settled version was a compromise where this information was to be mentioned as per which KW just removed. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 12:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
	*Can some one see to this, he's made about '''7 reverts''' just within a day to about 4 editors and to more if we count his previous reverts. This is just disrupting the on going RFC (which has already taken toll by now blocked socks) and is quite irking as it instills ] mentality instead of working towards a compromise among those already participating heated discussion (although not reverting like this guy). --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} —] (]) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
	**'''Continuation of editwar after expiring block''': user has continued to revert the same edit ''right away'' after coming out of his block . He's definitely ] to help the project. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 12:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	***{{AN3\|ab}} indefinitely by {{user-c\|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}. —] (]) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mayawati}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Vimal varun}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ambedkar Jayanti}} <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\|Callmehelper}}

	Previous version reverted to: {{oldid~~\|Mayawati\|668620175\|Previous revision of Mayawati}}~~		'''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:
			#
	*{{diff\|Mayawati\|669315764\|668620175\|Diff of Mayawati}}
			#
	*{{diff\|Mayawati\|669417162\|669378307\|Diff of Mayawati}}
			#
	*{{diff\|Mayawati\|669492908\|669417361\|Diff of Mayawati}}
	*{{diff\|Mayawati\|669494598\|669493903\|Diff of Mayawati}}

	<!-- 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: {{oldid\|User talk:Vimal varun\|669417417\|Previous revision of User talk:Vimal varun}}

	<!-- 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\|User talk:Vimal varun\|669493810\|669417417\|Diff of User talk:Vimal varun}} (on user talk, because his edit appears to be a misunderstanding of what a redirect is). -- ] (]) 15:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />] (]) You are an administrator. Why are you reporting a user to other administrator when you can block yourself.]] 17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
	:Probably because this admin is taking ] into consideration. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 19:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
	:: I reverted the last edit, warned the user and will block them if they continue edit warring.--] (]) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*'''Comment''': {{u\|Diannaa}} is nice admin, she won't block people when acting as editor. But I want to say something(which I should say on talk page but still..). Kumari should be used before name of unmarried girl, not after her name. It should be "Kumari Mayawati". Kumari is not surname of Mayawati. Kumari simply means "Miss". We don't write "Mary Miss", we write "Miss Mary". See , name written is "Kumari Mayawati". . Moreover "Kumari should not be written in infobox as we don't use "Miss", "Mrs", "Dr" etc in name on Misplaced Pages, its not her official name, she is still unmarried thats why word "Kumari" usually used before her name.--]] • 21:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
	::Thanks Human3015. I will start a discussion on this point on the talk page. -- ] (]) 21:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' ] is '''warned''' they may be blocked the next time they revert about Kumari, unless they get consensus first. ] (]) 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
	*: Which indeed happened soon after they received the warning.--] (]) 07:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Indian Removal Act}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Cscawley}}

			'''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 />Frequent edit warring by this user with several editors on an article falling under contentious and general sanctions. Also edit warring on ]. ] (]) 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	Previous version reverted to: {{diff2\|669530888}}

			:It's me @].
	<!-- 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. -->
			:'''Clarification by my side ; '''
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			:Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.
	# {{diff2\|669532535}}
			:* ''Disputes details'' ;
	# {{diff2\|669533001}}
			:# Firstly , I edit ] check history of that page from to
	# {{diff2\|669533239}}
			:#''' process of reverting by others and my responses'''
	# {{diff2\|669533610}}
			:** then and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes ] then i thought matter would be solved.
	# {{diff2\|669535538}}
			:*But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement and my response of revert and discussion on his talk page ]
	# {{diff2\|669543037}}
			:Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there
			:Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk ] but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on ]
			:So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.
			:the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under ] or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.
			:so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .
			:'''Conclusion'''
			:So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.
			:Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.
			:i left a discussion on ] page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources ].
			:I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.
			:
			:I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.
			:Much Regards. ] (]) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|d}} Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. ] (]) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	<!-- 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: {{diff2\|669540125}}<br />
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}} <br />
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ]
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{User-c\|Cscawley}} and {{IPuser\|2600:1003:B849:D635:0:29:8452:EE01}} are both {{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} for violating ]. —] (]) 03:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 3RR violated) ==
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

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

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ] and ]
	<!-- 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:
	# or
	#
	# or
	#

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			Editor repeatedly restoring unsourced content, making four reverts in just under an hour. - ] (]) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]
			:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 20:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==
	- Discussions regarding this same content have already taken place on the ] page as well.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Grail Movement}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Folawiki}}
	Redfoxjump has reverted the same content four times between the time period: (06:42, 1 July 2015‎‎) - (04:57, 2 July 2015‎‎), which explicitly violates ]. I've had many encounters with this user, most notably on the ] page, over content similar to what is in question here. Redfoxjump has displayed similar patterns of behavior on that page as he/she has on this page, resulting in a . One of the reasons I filed that report was because Redfoxjump continued to add content that was not from a neutral point of view - for example claiming that the "Chinese were more important than the Koreans" in the conflict by citing one particular battle. What's particularly frustrating is that, even though it seemed as though we had reached a consensus regarding this issue on the ], Redfoxjump seems to be trying to add the same POV information to articles such as ], in contrast with what was agreed upon before. ] (]) 06:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Your sentence is partial to Korea.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	The siege of Pyongyang was the most important. The Japanese army largely withdrew for the first time. The Korean army was in the minority at the siege of Pyongyang
			# {{diff2\|1265465790\|02:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "The claimed reason provided, "whitewashing", provides nothing concrete to justify such action. What is whitewashing? And what precisely in the edit qualified as such? Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265465049\|02:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265464033\|02:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1265459461\|01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	The main force was the chinese forces.
			# {{diff2\|1265464764\|02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "{{re\|Folawiki}} The whitewashing has to stop. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Chinese 30000 Korean 10000,

			Cult whitewashing. ] (]) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	Other main battles
			*Indefinitely blocked.--] (]) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	Siege of Ulsan,
	Chinese 44,000,
	Korean 11,500,

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Trisha Krishnan}}
	Battle of Sacheon,
	34,000 Chinese, 2,200 Koreans,

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TheHappiestEditor}}
	Siege of Suncheon,
	21,900 Chinese Army, 5,928 Korean Army, 19,400 chinese Navy, 7,328 Korean Navy,

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	The main force was the chinese forces.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	source """Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War, Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, "(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive.""""
			# {{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."
	] (]) 07:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1265165246\|13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."

			*Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
	: ], please refer to the ] where I have addressed your concerns. There are just as many important battles in which the Koreans acted alone or were numerically superior. You claim that I'm partial to Korea, yet the only one asserting that one party was "more important" than the other is you. Regardless, edit warring is unacceptable. ] (]) 07:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
			#
	*<s>{{AN3\|nv}}.</s>{{small\|(See below)}} I counted only three actual reverts ( ) in a 24-hour period. That being said, {{user-c\|Redfoxjump}}, you '''cannot''' use "your edit is partial to " as an excuse to edit war. The ''only'' valid exceptions to the three-revert rule are ]. Both of you are indeed on the verge of edit warring, so please exercise caution. —] (]) 09:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
			#
			#

			#
	:: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this count as a revert? The action performed here reverted part of the edit I made here where I deleted the full name of the conflict since I felt that it was appropriately alluded to by the phrase "Hideyoshi would invade Korea twice in 1592 and 1596". Redfoxjump undid my edit by re-adding the full name of the conflict.

			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	:: The 3RR rule says that "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." In this case, I believe this qualifies as "different material" that was undone "in part". Once again, please correct me if I'm mistaken. ] (]) 09:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
			# - putting fake sources/infomation
			# - putting fake sources/infomation

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:::{{Re\|BlackRanger88}} Yes, is a revert by {{user-c\|Redfoxjump}}. It looks like I was looking at the timestamps incorrectly, as I counted that as outside the 24 hour period from his last edit, when it's actually just within it. Thank you for pointing that out. However, blocking him would not serve a useful purpose at this point. ] and the disruption seems to have stopped.
			#
	:::{{Ping\|Redfoxjump}} Please be aware that you did indeed violate ] on this article, and any further behavior that appears to be edit warring or any other disruptive editing is likely to result in an '''immediate block'''. —] (]) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::: @]: Thanks for your feedback. Hopefully we'll be able to work out a compromise through discussion. ] (]) 08:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Adam Kotsko}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Jørgen88}}

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

			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)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|669610943\|09:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 669608676 by ] (])Stop removing sourced content. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it should be removed."
	# {{diff2\|669608582\|09:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 669608461 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|669607537\|09:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 669600361 by ] (]) It doesn't matter what he said afterwards. His statements were real and can't be excused."

			:{{u\|TheHappiestEditor}}, please respond to these allegations. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|669622858\|12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (])"
	# {{diff2\|669623140\|12:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|669623583\|12:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)}} "/* If someone has any problem relating to sourced and verified content, yet controversial, discuss it here instead of engaging in an edit war */ stop"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|103.84.130.238}}
	Edit warring at ]; discussion ongoing at talk page. SPI also opened as suspicious IP {{u\|176.11.33.252}} edits being made to continue edit war while evading 4RR ] (]) 12:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:My content is sourced. And the IP is not me, but I don't know how to prove that. ] (]) 12:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
	::Yes, what a remarkable coincidence that another editor in Norway suddenly finds that dispute at the same time and wants to make identical reverts... ] (]) 13:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::I've checked the IP. It's from the other side of the country... ] (]) 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
	* {{AN3\|p}} I have semi-protected for a week, which will stop the IPs. I am letting ] off, because they have now stopped warring and are using the talk page. Jørgen88, if you touch the article again before a ] forms, you may well be blocked. ] ] ] 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
	::::I get it, point taken. I just forgot about the third revert rule thingy. ] (]) 16:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
			# {{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:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Anti-Iranian sentiment}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|MehrdadFR}}
			#

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

			Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			: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)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result:Indefinitely blocked) ==
	<!-- 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: User/IP didn't use the talk page.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Angelo Rules}}
	<u>Comments:</u> New user (probably the same IP 109.60.45.52 who has been edit-warring before, when the article wasn't semi-protected) keeps trying to add mostly unsourced POV content, without bothering to gain consensus on the talk page.--] (]) 00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC) <br />
	*{{AN3\|p}} Edit warring throughout the day by multiple editors without a single talk page post. Page fully protected. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	::Ok Neil, but let's not forget MehrdadFR broke 3RR (that's a fact!), and he was blocked in March for the same reason. He deserves a longer blockade to understand the importance of obeying Misplaced Pages's rules. This is regardless of the article we are discussing.--] (]) 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::'''Both''' of you were continuing the edit war instead of using the talk page. As ] states, "The rule is '''not an entitlement''' to revert a page a specific number of times." --] <sup>]</sup> 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Johnny test person}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	], as can be seen from , is just going from article to article and pushing his rigid pro-Israeli agenda. There are two problematic examples:
	# ], three reverts . Not only 3RR is an issue here, he simply deleted scholarly source with explanation: ''what's the encyclopedic value or relevance of an unknown Iranian "scholar" named 'Sasan Fayazmanesh'?''. It's an academic source by American professor, and he don't accept it because of his Iranian origin. Disgusting, and also a racist.
	# ], the same story: three reverts . This article was lacking sources and it had dead links issues, which were improved by inserting fresh links and two academic sources (] + ]). Again he removed everything and he insist that there's "no consensus". Consensus for inserting reliable sources, not their removal? Simply ridiculous.
	There's not any POV issue here, just vandalism by user who ] ]. --] (]) 00:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:Leaving aside your add-hominem attacks, I didn't break 3RR in any of those two articles. You did in anti-Iranian sentiment. That's unacceptable and deserves a long blockade. You knew the 3RR policy since you suffered a blockade in March for that same reason.
	::3RR doesn't include ] (]) like in your case, because your edits clearly fell under such definition. An obvious vandalism. --] (]) 01:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::I was trying to restore the long-standing version that you want to replace for POV (mostly unsourced) content, without discussing on the talk page.--] (]) 01:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|p}} Edit warring throughout the day by multiple editors without a single talk page post. Page fully protected. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1265621270\|21:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Walashma dynasty}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1265402736\|19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Zekenyan}}
			# {{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:'''
	<!-- 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:

			'''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:

	On ]:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	On ]:
	#
	#

			Back from an edit warring block with an additional personal attack (]) ] (]) 21:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			* {{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)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	<!-- 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:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Automotive industry in China}} <br />
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Infinty 0}}
	After some time away, Zekenyan has come back to edit war for on two separate articles. ] (]) 01:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:This user is not providing any sources for his edit which constitutes to Original research. For this reason I should have clemency. ] (]) 01:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	::Nah, please check the article and the extensive talk page discussion as well. ] (]) 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::Sorry it doesnt work like that. You cant simply refer to a discussion from another article. Regarding the dynasty page im the last one to respond to him and he has ignored it here . This user has removed my well sourced additions and replaced them with original research ] (]) 01:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	::::That discussion ended months ago. I left due to you making a personal attack against me which was accusing me of . I have never broken 3RR, but I can't say the same about you (in response to something you just deleted in your reply). Nor were you my statements "original research". Yours, on the other hand, were proven to be fringe months ago. BTW, stop bringing this discussions to this noticeboard. Your post to explain why you broke 3RR and not try to continue to bring up something that had already ended. ] (]) 02:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::::It seems you are use to breaking 3rr and getting away with it ] (]) 02:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	::::::No, you can continue to revert vandalism. I recommend you check out ]. You can report me for that if you don't believe me but you won't get far. ] (]) 02:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' Two articles protected. Zekenyan, who filed this report, broke 3RR at ] and AcidSnow was close behind. I suggest the two of you either take this to ] or open a formal ]. The talk discussion is reasonable but each side is quick to declare victory for their own position. The data is ultra-confusing and you should get some outsider opinions. ] (]) 16:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Jurassic World}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|DisuseKid}}
			#
			#
			#

	<!-- 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:
	# (these first three are reverting the cast order)
	#
	#
	# (which was a revert of , a plot detail revert)

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

	<!-- 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: , , another uninvolved editor ultimately agreed with me on the talk page, and that's the only feedback I've received so far.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	:As linked to above, I left a note on the users talk page, also warning them of 3RR when I saw they had reverted me while I was leaving them a message. I submitted my talk page message, then went back and corrected the page one last time. The editor reverted my message on their talk page and reverted my change again, in defiance of the message I'd left them. If you filter the editors contributions to the Talk namespace, they've only ever made two edits to that namespace in their time here. :/ —] • ] • ] 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	'''Suggestion:''' I recommend a ''' 42 hour block for DisuseKid''' because of a previous 2RR violation on in the article's history: & and a ] to prevent continuous reverts after the block has proceeded. — ] (]) 04:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:2RR isn't a "rule" though. It is a prior example of edit warring behavior, which is problematic, but this user is also new. I'd tend to err on the side of ], go for a 16-24 hour block to get their attention hopefully and bring them to the talk page (which I note this user posted a question to, and then sadly deleted it a short time later). I'd even be fine with an uninvolved admin just leaving the user a note, letting them know they violated the rule, and getting them to agree to discuss edits in the future instead of blindly reverting. I disagree with the full protection: it's not necessary when it's limited to this small number of editors, and the page was only recently semi-protected (which has cut back on the anon edits). —] • ] • ] 05:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Electronic cigarette}} <br />

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|SPACKlick}}
			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)
	Previous version reverted to:
			: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)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	Diffs of the user's reverts:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hephthalite–Gokturk raids of 614–616}} <br />
	On ]:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|وقت الصلاة}}
	# Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
	# Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
	# Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
	# Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
	# Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			#
			#
			#
			#

	Diff of ~~attempt~~ to ~~resolve dispute on article~~ ~~talk~~ ~~page~~:		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

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

			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)
	*{{user\|SPACKlick}} has been notified of the community imposed sanctions by ]. This is a slow edit war going back to last month. Although technically not a 3RR violation the image is being deleted from the society and culture section 5 times by the same editor without consensus. A total of 3 different editors have restored the image. There was a previous 3RR violation on same article back in April. See ]. ] (]) 03:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 18:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	*{{ANEW\|n}}: This is definitely disruptive editing. Per the general sanctions authorized by the community, {{user-c\|SPACKlick}} is hereby prohibited from adding or removing images from articles relating to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, until July 31, 2015 23:59 UTC. I will log the sanction and notify the editor in question momentarily. —] (]) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (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)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~New~~ ~~Haven~~ ~~Fire Department}}~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Justice}} <br />
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|~~Newhavenfire97~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Remsense}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
	# {{diff2\|669734296\|04:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}} "continued quest to maintain factual information till 25 year old internet troll zackmann08 undoes this edit to his inaccurate info"
			#
	# {{diff2\|669731228\|04:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}} "undid revision by zackmann08 who continuously posts outdated, false, unverified information."
			#
	# {{diff2\|669694490\|22:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)}} "undid changed by zackmann to reflect most current information. zackmann repeatedly vandalized page with outdated info"
			#
	# {{diff2\|669669081\|18:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 667119360 by ] (]) zackmann08 keeps posting outdated false information"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

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

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	{{user\|C.Fred}} previously ] the user. I requested that the user discuss on the article's talk page ]. — ] <small>(]<b>·</b>]<b>·</b>])</small> 04:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* {{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} The primary justification for the block was the bright-line violation of the three-revert rule; however, there are other issues with this editor's conduct that may require some guidance and mentoring after the block expires—''']''' (]) 13:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
			Guilty as charged. None of my justifications matter, since 3RR doesn't care that IPs can just slip into the night instead of actually engaging in discussion on talk, leaving a highly visible article in a broken state for hours because my hands are tied to fix it. Can't ask anyone else to fix it because that's canvassing. I've been given a lot of wiggle room here over the past couple months, so if this earns me a week then so be it. It's extremely frustrating trying to protect the most important articles on the site, so maybe after this I should just give up. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

			:{{reply to\|Remsense}} Your accusation that I left {{tqi\|a highly visible article in a broken state for hours}} is a completely baseless ] and should lengthen your block. Any administrator can read the article's diffs and confirm that at no point did I do such a thing. You're the one who deleted well-referenced material. ] (]) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer blocked) ==

			Add to the above the following ] by Remsense on the article's talk page: . ] (]) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Grace Dunham}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|NorthBySouthBaranof\|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	The user is also topic banned from this subject according to the arbitration committee's ruling in the above Clarification Request . The request concerned this incident specifically over which he is now edit-warring. ] (]) 06:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:The scrutiny-avoiding IPs in question are reverting questionably-sourced and unduly-weighted highly-negative material into the article (claims that the article subject was a victim of sexual abuse) while removing the subject's own responses to these claims (rejecting them.) Note the series of different anonymous IPs with zero editorial history making similar reverts - this is clearly some sort of off-wiki-coordinated attack. I have page protection and a responsible IP on the appropriate noticeboards. ] (]) 06:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:I note that by ]. ] (]) 06:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	::I don't know that blocking the IP would be productive at this point given the protection, perhaps they will decide to engage in some discussion. Their removal of the subject's responses to the controversial material was very inappropriate. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 07:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:I'm not convinced this meets the "obvious" standard of ], but that's why we have ]. IP's edits are terrible, and I find it hard to believe someone would be pushing this at ] without having encountered the history of similar attempts at ]. ] (]) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|NorthBySouthBaranof}} I apologize, I never noticed that the IP was reporting ''you'' instead of the other way around (thus my comment). I guess that boomerang-ed quickly, heh. For the record I have no problems whatsoever with your actions here, ban or no ban. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:{{nao}} Filer IP '''blocked''' for 48 hours. ] (]) 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Aleksander Dugin}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jbmorgan4}}

	<!-- 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: (but this is also sock puppetry, so warning is moot)

	<!-- 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: etc

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

	Based on edit summaries, it's ] that this is the same user as: ], ], ], ] + a few IPs and a couple accounts I likely missed. I'll file an SPI but in the mean time this is the 3RR report part. I'll most likely also ask for semi-protection (again) ] (]) 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 24 hours}} ==

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

	<!-- 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: {{diff\|title=Alex_Jones_(radio_host)\|oldid=669771590}}

	Rojava is under 1 revert rule per 24 hours.

	'''Diff''':
	1-

	2-

	Not to mention the removing of a whole sourced section 4 minutes after I asked him to use the talk pages through a message on his talk page .

	Not to mention that most probably he is a sockpuppet of a user recently indefinitely blocked ], who edit with the exact same style and was reported for racism ]. This user "Marvzi" only started to be active again after Multi-Gesture was blocked. And what a surprise He removed the same material Multi-Gesture tried to remove, which are related to a website named Kurdwatch :

	1- In here, you will see an IP removing Kurdwatch material AND in here, you will see Multi-gesture admitting that he was the one who removed Kurdwatch

	2- After Multi-gesture was blocked, Surprise, Kurdwatch material was deleted by Marvzi Please notice the edit summaries of Marzvi and Multi-Gesture, suspiciously similar.

	3- Marvzi again is using the same ethnic spirit of Multi-Gesture by insisting on using the Arab designation for ISIS slave markets, even though its not mention in the source . This "Arab" word inserted in association with ISIS is the style of Multi-gesture for which a case was filled against him in the ANI ] and for which two admins decided to permanently block Multi-gesture--] (]) 16:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	* {{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]<small> • </small>]) 19:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Rojava}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Attar-Aram syria}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

	*Comment : The first so called revert was not a revert but a fix for what the source actually says which I provided in the summary. The second revert which is an real one, was a restoration of a whole sourced section deleted without a discussion which is actual vandalism. Please notice that I did asked him to engage in the talke page but he didnt cooperate --] (]) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	*{{On hold}} pending results at ]. The first edit was absolutely a revert, but see ]. ] (]<small> • </small>]) 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	::Hmmm, Sorry then, I will accept whatever rightful measure that shall be taken against me.--] (]) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::Update : this user was confirmed as a sockpuppet hence I was reverting edits by a blocked user (which I knew for sure). So I acted under this ].--] (]) 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	* {{AN3\|d}} per 3RRNO. ] (]<small> • </small>]) 21:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Perry Hall High School}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|108.3.162.35}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|669723642\|02:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Local newspaper"
	# {{diff2\|669730046\|03:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 669723782 by ] (It's a local newspaper it's credible) (])"
	# {{diff2\|669809682\|18:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 669736021 by ] (It is real, it is credible, people there care, We don't care about you, get over it) (])"
	# {{diff2\|669823372\|20:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 669814612 by ] (])"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|669814634\|18:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|669816197\|19:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}} "/* recent edits 7/3/2015 */ new section"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	in addition, their talk page was created with a edit war warning template that was not linked to, but was about the article in question. ] (]) 20:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:Also edit-warring this same content at ], where it is even less appropriate (sorry for not putting a link in my warning to the article where I first noticed the behavior). Editor is blindly reverting to his last edit, destroying others' unrelated intervening changes as well (even worse than simple inclusion/exclusion of his certain item of interest). ] (]) 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	::Just want to point this out. IP tried removing the report twice. — ] (]) 21:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::IP just tried to remove my comment. — ] (]) 22:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	::::The IP is edit warring on the admins edit war noticeboard? There's a strategy that needs some rethinking. ] (]) 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
	* {{AN3\|b\| 24 hours}} ]<sup>]</sup> 22:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|United Against Nuclear Iran}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|MehrdadFR}}

	<!-- 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: - was warned about edit warring earlier today, on a different article, and has reported another user for edit warring on THIS article.

	<!-- 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 />
	User was just here a few hours ago, edit warring on multiple articles <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:There's already been discussion about everything ]. Keep in mind that 3RR doesn't include ] (]), which was obvious in Averysoda's systematically deletion of sourced material. --] (]) 00:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
	::None of your reverts were of vandalism. You need to read ] to see what it means. This is a simple content dispute and you are edit warring.] (]) 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Northeastern University}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Calidum}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	<u>4 reverts in 2 hours</u> <br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] (]) 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
	*Yes, imagine having the audacity to suggest someone wanting to add controversial information (which was already in the article almost verbatim) should discuss such a change on the talk page. You made no effort to resolve the situation. And I find it highly suspicious that two IPs, which both made their first edits and geolocate to the same city, decided to join in on the edit war. Finally, the page has already been protected so this appears to be ]. ] ]\|] 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
	::Oh, and look who just started a proper ]. ] ]\|] 05:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comments''': Looks like edit warring to me in addition to a refusal to employ ]. After being told by the other editor to take concerns regarding disputed content, Calidum snarkily responds, . No attempts to discuss that I can see; no real explanation for edit reversion in edit summaries, either. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 04:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
	::I'm surprised it took you 15 minutes to find this report. And BTW, the user who filed the report also failed to follow BRD since they insisted on making a change to the article without discussing it first. ] ]\|] 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::I did discuss it: my change included the explanation "if it's ok to mention the rise in rankings twice, it's ok to mention the criticism twice" ] (]) 05:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Badger_%28poker_player%29_%282nd_nomination%29}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Handpolk}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Continually removing comment by {{u\|2005}}

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Fairly clear violation of ] in addition to ]. <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
	: Am I reading it right that the warning came after the editor's last edit? ] (]) 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

	*2005 is making baseless accusations across numerous venues that I'm a sick of a specific user, without offering a shred of evidence. He needs to take it to SPI and these accusations need to be removed. ] ] 07:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:59, 28 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Both users have been Warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Those users and Mei23448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems continuing edit wars on Monquirasaurus and Sachicasaurus articles.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

In addition, PaleoFile posted personal attack on talk page of Mei23448.

Both users does not provide reliable sources, PaleoFile only proposing X post in edit summaries and cite nothing, while Mei23448 also does not cite anything to change. Both users needs to be blocked. (Jens Lallensack seems only trying to revert vandalism, so is not problematic than those two) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
17 tons for Sachicasaurus has been debunked so I changed it and some user cant accept that his favourite animal isnt as big as he wants. Mei23448 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If you have a dispute, you may discuss it on the article's talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Also 15 ton for Sachicasaurus is based on the Sachicasaurus reconstruction from Diocles. Mei23448 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: The problem persists, Mei23448 and User:PaleoFile continue their edit war / vandalism on both pages. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the notification, Jens Lallensack. Both blocked indefinitely, the latter unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

It's me @Callmehelper.

Clarification by my side ;

Firstly I never ever got any Edit Warning before.

Disputes details ;

Firstly , I edit Ambedkar Jayanti check history of that page from here to final version
process of reverting by others and my responses

- 1st Revert My response then again revert and we had a little discussion on my talk page for this disputes see then i thought matter would be solved.
But other editor revert again by saying no need to improvement see and my response of revert here and discussion on his talk page here

Then instead of healthy discussion this guy response me by saying you have problem with ambedkar article as well so first solve there see

Now I want to clarify that this guy totally misused the healthy discussion and try to show like there is editing warning on me about Ambedkar Main article talk here but this matter solve 1 month ago by further discussion on Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#Request_for_Administrator Review_of_Recent_Edits_on_Dr. B.R._Ambedkar's_Page

So here in ambedkar page, there is nothing issue about any dispute about that discussion specifically.

the current discussion on Ambedkar page is going on about my changes that is under WP:UNDUE or not about new fresh topic. check last discussion on talk page ] this discussion is currently going on as there is no response given further by anyone yet.

so there is nothing like editing warning on me regarding Ambedkar page .

Conclusion

So all my point is whenever I edit, i edit with much responsiblity that this should be based on fact and figures with the valuable citations. I gave explanation of everything what i edit with sources and editing summary.

Some editor, i don't know what's want? they don't discuss on facts and sources.

i left a discussion on Ambedkar Jayanti page for further discussion as well but response are so weak in my POV amd also misleading my claim and sources look.

I think, i clarify my side well enough. for further discussioni am on.

I hope Administrator will look up this discussion/dispute from NPOV.

Much Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Declined Discussion has started on the talk page. Let's let it play out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1265377722

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

User:Infinty 0 reported by User:Amigao (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
This user continued to revert even after a 3RR warning was provided on the user's talk page. The user does not seem to want to address substantive issues on talk to reach consensus and instead prefers to engage in NPOV WP: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)

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)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Categories: