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 22:32, 30 September 2015 editSNUGGUMS (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers120,950 edits OneClickArchiver archived User:Elduderino reported by User:Cirt (Result: Blocked 24 hours for BLP violations) to [[Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive295#User:Elduderino reported by User...← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:12, 31 December 2024 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,393 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) to last revision by Bbb23Tags: Twinkle Undo
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 = ~~295~~		\|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: Blocked indefinitely for now) ==
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Trisha Krishnan}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no action / stale ) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TheHappiestEditor}}
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Guatemalan Revolution}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Sigehelmus}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{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\|683017435\|15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)}} "adding npov, ref, fixing grammar, etc"
	# {{diff2\|~~683055661~~\|20:57, 27 ~~September~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)}} "~~changed~~ a ~~word,~~ ~~added~~ a ~~synonym,~~ ~~removed~~ a ~~needless~~ ~~replacement~~ ~~term,~~ ~~added~~ a ~~reference.~~ ~~That's~~ it.~~...what exactly is wrong here?~~"		# {{diff2\|1265165246\|13:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* top */She works in Malayalam films too. There are two upcoming Malayalam films of Trisha."
	# {{diff2\|683079670\|00:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "You seem to imply that changing one half of a sentence was worth a multiple-day discussion for an entire NPOV label. You should start the discussion the next time, I'm standing by my changes. This violates nothing!"
	# {{diff2\|683166462\|15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "added back in democratic, I see the issue; I don't count this as a revert, pls correct me tho if wrong"

			*Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			#
	# {{diff2\|683101739\|04:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} ""
			#
	# {{diff2\|683178415\|17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "/* September 2015 */"
			#

			#
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|683185202\|18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Possible bias/lack of WP:NPOV */ will you please discuss this?"

			# - putting fake sources/infomation
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			# - putting fake sources/infomation
			# - putting fake sources/infomation

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Continued and pointed refusal to discuss these edits, despite multiple invitations to do so, and multiple warnings about edit-warring. Despite this, I the editor to self-revert, which they have declined to do. ] (]) 23:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
			#
	:You know the only reason I didn't report you first for your insistence on red tape and refusal o cooperate or ] was out of the Christian kindness in my heart. Why can't you be more like that Australian guy? Chill out.--<small style="font-size:85%;">] ]</small> 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	::Note: User has ; as of now no action is necessary. It was late in coming, but ] might be appropriate. ] (]) 20:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::Notice how you're the only one who cares and is riding off bureaucratic red tape abuse, whilst the nice Australian fellow actually cared about improving the community. You're the one hanging yourself.--<small style="font-size:85%;">] ]</small> 20:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	No action taken for now. Was also considering a block for the personal attack in the edit summary. Sigehelmus is to treat this as a warning. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 16:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 24 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sur Baher}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Debresser}}

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

			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)
	Previous version reverted to:

			:{{u\|TheHappiestEditor}}, please respond to these allegations. ] (]) 22:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# : Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"
	# : Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"

			{{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)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see: ]
			:@] 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) ==
	<!-- 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\|Hariprasad Chaurasia}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|103.84.130.238}}
	Article is under 1RR, ] (]) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	=== Reaction by Debresser ===

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	: I have know Huldra for a while already. He makes very good edits in general, but he also has a clear POV, and that is fine with me, as long as he doesn't disturb this project with his POV. The problem is, that he is also a belligerent editor, who has taken to pick on me, and because a few other editors with the same POV regarding the PI conflict work together, he thinks he can get away with it. I would like a clear message to be sent to Huldra, that the community will not stand for ignoring talkpage consensus and disruptive behavior, and will not allow him to "take over" a whole bunch of article.
			# {{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:'''
	: My second edit was at best a very partial revert, which came to restore a consensus version. I would like to point out to the admins here that the question whether that header should say "occupation" or "control" was discussed at <u>considerable</u> length at ], and that Huldra himself took an active part in that discussion. Coming back after half a year and disturb that consensus is a blatant ] edit, and per the ] Huldra should not even be able to report me here. The least I propose is a ] warning to Huldra to this effect.
			#
			#

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	: Please also see ] where Huldra posted an a friendly (unknown to me) talkpage stalker replied to him that I do have a point, and that Huldra should continue discussing this. To which Huldra's only reply was that he doesn't believe in discussion with me, with the explicitly stated reason that he is been unable in the past to convince me!! The fact is that Huldra has on many occasions been able to convince me, but not always, i.e. when he is wrong. It is not me who refuses to discuss with him, but he with me (see first line in edit, for example).

	: I ask to view my edit in light of the above, that Huldra knowingly ignored a consensus, and displays blatant disruptive behavior, including a refusal to discuss with me, and warn Huldra accordingly. ] (]) 10:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	::There is a 1RR in place across the topic area. All of us have to abide by it, including you. You could still self-revert and there would be no problem. And you are misrepresenting a consensus on the issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)</small>
	::: Your point of view is as usual, and your support for Huldra as well. Which per Huldra's argument at ] means your opinion doesn;t count. :)
	::: The consensus on the issue is clear, see my latest post on the article talkpage: ].
	::: An editor who willfully ignores consensus is a disruptive editor, and not much better than a vandal. Why would Huldra be allowed to do this, and I am not allowed to revert one word of a whole edit? If I am to be punished for changing one word (and I do find it hard to call that a "revert"), then I insist Huldra be punished for willfully making a disruptive edit in blatant disregard of consensus that she herself (I remembered the gender just in time, after I already started to write "he himself") was part of establishing. ] (]) 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::(e/c) I am the "friendly talk page stalker" (unknown to you because we have never extensively interacted) referred to above. I have been on the sidelines for years, and am known to a few well-respected editors in I/P, on either POV. ], please self-revert. Let us get back to doing real substantive work and get off this wretched board. I think you made some interesting comments, some quite persuasive and should be discussed further ''away from here''. This is not a game of tennis, no one is winning "points". Please show some grace here. It would go a long way. Regards, Simon. ] (]) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::This looks to be a 1RR violation, based on the two diffs submitted above. I propose a 48-hour block if the editor won't self-revert. If Debresser considers changing 'occupation' to 'control' to not be a revert then he is an optimist. For him to perceive a consensus on Talk for the word 'control' in that heading then he is even more optimistic. ] (]) 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::::IMO, this
	::::::*A) is a clear 1 RR-violation
	::::::*B) Debresser has made it absolutely that they have no intention to self-revert, even when asked to do so by multiple editors (Irondome, Nishidani (on my talk-page), myself and Nableezy)
	::::::*C) If he is not blocked for this, then that means that the 1 RR rule is not valid for Debresser, and that he can "impose" a consensus", by breaking the rules and edit-warring.
	::::::*(Besides the above, I also note that Debresser also here insists on calling me "male", even after being told not to do so ],) --] (]) 12:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: EdJohnston, the fact is that "control" was the word that stuck after that long discussion. Huldra was part of that discussion. If so, his change of that word after half a year is a deliberate disruption. Why do you ignore that?
	:::::::: EdJohnston, I undid one word from a whole edit . Is that worth all the talk about a 1RR violation?
	:::::::: I think that all this talk about a block is out of proportion in view of the deliberate disruptiveness of Huldra's edit, and that my revert to the previous consensus version regarding this heading, was the best call. In addition, it is already after 24 hours, so if you want, please consider as though I undid my edit and then re-did it after 24 hours. If anybody wants me to waste Wikimedia resources and do that, I am willing to do so. ] (]) 12:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Dovid. This is becoming a cognitive/behavior problem. This is the 4th time I can remember you breaking 1R with impunity, because editors like myself you regard as part of a 'cabal' (see above) have refrained from reporting you
	:My last notice was concerning . I waited a full week because of Rosh HaShanah, then the Sabbath. You refused in the end to budge. Here again, the prelude to this report was advice away from admin eyes, on personal pages, quietly telling you just to revert. No threats. Again, for the second time this month, you just ignored this collegial informal courtesy.
	:I told Simon I wouldn't comment here, but given this stubbornness in the face of advice from all sides, done in a quiet collegial spirit of nudging, for a practice of violating 1R repeatedly, I'm breaking my undertaking because you appear to think this is about bluffing, and not a matter of simply sticking to rules the rest of us stick to. You might have not noticed but, in part due to Simon's good offices, editors here have been trying recently to lower the temperature and rid this area of the ] repute it has long, unfortunately, had.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:I'd remind you that being right is no excuse. at AE, most admins were minded to hand out a week sanction to me. I stubbornly refused to revert. I considered it a matter of honour since, unlike this case, I would have been obliged to restore a falsehood. ''Correctly'' Seraphimblade imposed a 1 month sanction. Truth is not the issue, but rule-adherence.
	:You may think Ed's mulling of a 48 hour sanction neither here nor there, and 'wearable' on a point of honour. But you are making even that more complicated. --] told you yesterday re your persistence in calling Huldra a man, that ] violation" ''if it continues''.] What's your answer this morning? To write defiantly:'Huldra was part of that discussion. If so, '''his''' change of that word. . .' In refusing to revert, and persisting in an uncompromising defiance of friendly warnings, you give all the appearance of wanting to call someone's bluff. This piddling matter could have been buried quietly, and you insist on drama. So, for tetragrammaton's sake, either wake up, and do the proper thing as you have been advised to do unanimously, or bullheadedly declare that you don't give a stuff for collegial practice.] (]) 13:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	I have blocked for 24 hours. Debresser has plenty of opportunity to revert per the suggestions here. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	::Thank you for finally blocking. ]: I understand yours, and ] wish to make the I/P area less contentious/posonous. Just let me say this: giving in to the bullies, is not a good way to start. Please report every 1RR from Debresser (or anyone else!) from now on, (after they are given a chance to revert, of course.] But if he continues to edit like normal, after being told to self-revert: please don´t hesitate a minute to report him ...and block him. Seriously, haven´t we wasted ''far'' too much time on this? ] (]) 21:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			Keeps on adding (edit wars) honorifics despite explanation about ] and ] in edit summaries and warnings ] (]) 14:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
			:The IP was initially reported to AIV, since disruptive edits continued after a warning, but was to report it here. - ] (]) 14:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:@] Sadly, the IP is now doing the exact same thing over at the article ] (]). — ] ] 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Blocked, thanks. ] (]) 16:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Muhammad in Islam}}
			{{Atop\|Enough.--] (]) 20:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Simpleabd}}

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|683225521\|23:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "ok. we add good source already."
	# {{diff2\|683146375\|12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "we add good source."
	# {{diff2\|683125286\|09:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "i already messaged you. you are making mistake already."
	# {{diff2\|683125047\|09:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "the source and information is clean. kindly do not make it complicated."
	# {{diff2\|683124224\|08:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "kindly check the source Quran 3:19. it states Islam is the only religion in the sight of ALLAH. Quran 2:285, ALLAH is make no distinction to any of His messengers."

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


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


			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	The user as notified by User:Materialscientist about his unconstructive edit and was asked by User:AstroLynx to discuss his controversial changes on talk first . Instead, he keeps edit warring. -]] 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:Please see the history of article, he is continuously changing the sourced information. -]] 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} Edit warring on multiple article with multiple editors. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi, Warnings) ==
			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)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Demographics of Tunisia}} <br />
			: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)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tounsimentounes}}

			Add to the above the following ] by Remsense on the article's talk page: . ] (]) 20:49, 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. -->

			: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)
	Previous version reverted to:
			::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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 04:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::No one lied, I made what I felt was a minor edit. You then jumped to incorrect conclusions, insulted me after I criticized your uncivil and unprofessional conduct and then stocked my editing history to an unrelated article. Your conduct in my view continues to be as I described, and I continue to hold your temperament to be ill-suited for editing here. I ask that you show humility and engage in much needed introspection and improve yourself if you intend to continue posting here. ] (]) 04:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It was not a "minor clean up", and you know it. I don't have to pretend I don't also know it, so don't bother. FWIW I have ] on my watchlist, but you're not entitled to your contribution history being immune from scrutiny when one instance belies the clear possibility of more. That's why it's there. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 04:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::As I said, humility and introspection would serve you well, but I see no benefit in further interaction with you. Take care. ] (]) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Another way of stating this would be to say that you didn't follow the date format rules (why doesn't really matter), used misleading/uninformative edit summaries experienced editors have seen countless times before with BCE->BC and CE->AD transforms like 'Minor clean up' and 'Minor grammar cleanup', and Remsense left you an informative message to help you avoid repeating these kinds of errors. ] (]) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{AN3\|no}} Remsense smartly reverted his last revert, so ]. However, this has not been Wikipedians at their best. The IP's that the cited source does not mention this has not been addressed; instead this edit war broke out over something entirely procedural which is not even policy. Further discussion should, I think, focus on the issue around the sourcing of "equitable" and whether that word should be cited in the intro. ] (]) 18:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{reply to\|Daniel Case}} A violation ''did'' occur. happened long ''after'' the violation was reported here at ]. You cannot exempt a user from punishment just because they self-reverted long ''after'' being reported to try to avoid said punishment. Furthermore, Remsense . ] (]) 17:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Blocks are not a punishment, but a way to end and prevent disruption. By self-reverting, they recognized they erred, meaning the risk of further disruption is low. If you wish to pursue a grievance against another user's alleged broad pattern of behavior, that's not done here, but at ]. ] (]) 18:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{+1}} ] (]) 18:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{reply to\|331dot}} {{reply to\|Daniel Case}} That's what punishment does: Deterrence. By letting Remsense get away with this violation, you're breaking your own rules and encouraging similar behavior in the future.
			:::::::Do you have any personal connection with Remsense? ] (]) 21:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::It's funny this happened on ], given how frivolous and easily superseded this line of argumentation is. In cases as transparently explicable as this, unmediated claims of conspiracy truly are the last refuge of the scoundrel. Bless. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{reply to\|Remsense}} Calling a user a "scoundrel" after you've already made several personal attacks? Not wise. There's already a case building up against you. ] (]) 19:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::] I've indulged your repeated baiting of me more than enough at this point, so from now on please refrain from speaking to me unless you have something about site content you need to discuss. Thank you. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{reply to\|Remsense}} Calling a user a "scoundrel" is a personal attack. ] (]) 19:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{reply to\|331dot}} {{reply to\|Daniel Case}} To clarify, are you saying that if someone self-reverts long ''after'' being reported for a violation, they are exempt from any kind of consequence? ] (]) 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Given you have safely proven yourself a scholar of counting to 4, I recommend the remainder of ] to expand your horizons even further. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::This wasn't really helpful. ] (]) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::{{reply to\|331dot}} Remsense has already made 3 personal attacks on this matter. Will you hold them accountable for that? Or will you let them get away with it, again? ] (]) 19:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::I suggest that you move on from this matter. ]. I've already told you how you can pursue a grievance if that's something you really want to do. ] (]) 19:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::{{tqi\|WP:DROPTHESTICK}} Ah, the classic last retort of someone who has no rebuttal and knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::I don't claim that it is. It's advice. ] (]) 19:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I have nothing to say beyond what I already said. If you have evidence that they have truly not recognized their errors, or have a long pattern of behavior that requires evaluation and action by the community, AN is the proper forum. ] (]) 22:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::And no, I have no connection with this user. ] (]) 22:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{tqi\|If you have evidence that they have truly not recognized their errors}} Remsense has already been blocked twice before for edit warring: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Remsense. ] (]) 19:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Well, they're exempt from 3RR as ] clearly exempts reverts of your own reverts for ''exactly'' the reason 331dot mentioned. If there are other policies they have violated that might lead to a block, no, they're not off that hook. ] (]) 04:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{reply to\|Daniel Case}} Which point of ] do you claim absolves Remsense of this violation? Be specific. ] (]) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::Daniel very clearly answered this already. ] (]) 19:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::{{reply to\|331dot}} No, he didn't. Point 1 of ] means reverting yourself doesn't ''add'' to the 3RR count, not that it ''subtracts'' from it. ] (]) 19:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::That is the most common method of remedying a 3RR or 1RR violation, and is very common practice. ] (]) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::{{reply\|ScottishFinnishRadish}} So you admit a violation ''did'' occur. And "remedying" ≠ exempting. ] (]) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::]. You really need to move on, this is becoming disruptive. ] (]) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Why do you want me to "move on" from pursuing fair enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? As an administrator, you should be careful with your words. ] (]) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Wait until they find out that there is no policy definition of "revert". ] (]) 19:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::{{reply to\|ScottishFinnishRadish}} What's the point of your comment? Instead of being cryptic, why don't you state it outright? 19:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Policy pages are descriptive not proscriptive, and a lot of things are outright missing, e.g. the definition of what is forbidden by 3RR. ] (]) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::{{reply to\|ScottishFinnishRadish}} {{tqi\|Policy pages are... not proscriptive}} False. Read ]:
			::::::::::::::<div style="border: 2px solid #990000; background-color: #FFCCCC; border-radius: 1em; padding: 10px;">An editor must not perform {{strong\|more than three reverts}} on a {{strong\|single page}}—whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong\|24-hour period}}. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See ] for exemptions.</div>
			::::::::::::::{{tqi\|a lot of things are outright missing, e.g. the definition of what is forbidden by 3RR}} False. It's very clearly stated at ]. How is someone like you an administrator if you don't know this? ] (]) 19:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::What is the policy definition of a revert? ] (]) 19:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::{{reply to\|ScottishFinnishRadish}} ]. Do I really need to take you on a tour of Misplaced Pages's policies and basic vocabulary? Aren't you an administrator? You should've already known this. ] (]) 20:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::::As you said above, that's not a policy. ] (]) 20:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for a week) ==
	<!-- 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 last one is rather dubious for reasons discussed below)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1917 (2019 film)}}
	<!-- 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\|MapReader}}
	<!-- 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:
	and on the user's talk page under

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	I am not sure this is a 3RR violation, because the 41.x IP seems likely to be the same person who recently necessitated page semi-protection on ] - the edit summaries and nature of the edits are suggestive to me that that is the case. If so, perhaps the 4th revert is justified as reverting a persistently disruptive editor - indeed, one I also reverted.
			# {{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:'''
	If it _is_ a 3RR violation, of course, that also means I'm up to 3 reverts from 15:07 GMT on the 28th September onwards, so if that necessitates action, so be it.
			# {{diff2\|1265942155\|10:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Like last time I was here, for all I know {{u\|Tounsimentounes}} is _right_, but I'm not getting anywhere on having them produce sources to demonstrate it. ] (]) 06:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|952190013\|00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) on Talk:1917 (2019 film)}} "/* Country? */ r"
	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected one month. ] and ] are both at three reverts and are '''warned''' not to continue. Tounsimentounes stated on Talk: ''"We had already approved of that on the "Religion en Tunisie" French page, so we started cleaning the errors on the other language's pages"'' This doesn't excuse you from persuading editors here that your changes are an improvement. ] (]) 03:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==

			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)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|EA Sports UFC}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|AdrianGamer}}

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

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 Wisconsin Senate election}} <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\|Stormy160}}
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

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

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	* I have tried to communicate with all the involved editors and I heard no response from them. Adding ] is definitely not acceptable. What I did is to simply revert them, as adding GAMECRUFT can be considered as . I did not break the 3RR Rule. I revert you within a 48-hour period. ] (]) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	] it is not a valid reason to remove content. Removing valid content is vandalism. --] (]) 16:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:: Except that you were reverted by at least three editors for adding content that adds nothing to the article and which can be considered ] so you are the one going against policy. And anyone who looks at the article history can see that you are the one edit warring.--] (]) 16:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:: It is not valid content. It's inappropriate per guidelines that are already established. If you want to re-add it then you need to open a discussion about why this case is exempt from the guidelines. --] (]) 18:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}} There's a few IP's that sound the same at the article... ] <sup>]</sup> 21:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Naked Communist}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hawljo}}

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

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

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />I have repeatedly tried to discuss it with the editor, posting a long response to each thing reverted in the article but to no avail, as the user read my response, disagreed, and then reverted back to their desired change, claiming I said something I did not. I have no idea hoe else to resolve this conflict because the table me and other editors built has had 0 issue until this one editor came in and started claiming issues existed with it (that don't exist by the way). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
	<!-- 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 -->
			:Yes, that is edit-warring. PS - We should have a link to the ''consensus'' being mentioned. ] (]) 16:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			::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)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] (]) 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	Also this warning, for a separate article:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page full-protected for three days) ==
	<!-- 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: - not article Talk page, but mine, where I recommended taking this persistent edit to the article Talk page

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Pooja Hegde}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Newly created account, edit warring on at least two articles, no engagement on any Talk page, persisting beyond warnings. ] (]) 22:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Also at or beyond 3RR at and . ] (]) 22:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I've indefinitely blocked the user as ].--] (]) 23:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Thesanas}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no action) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Uniformitarianism}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hal2k1}}

			'''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\|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:'''
	Previous version reverted to: "Uniformitarianism is the assumption that ..."
			# {{diff2\|1265915618\|06:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring 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\|1265915247\|06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* GA article */"
	Diffs of the user's reverts:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	# 14:14, 26 September 2015‎ ''"Uniformitarianism is claimed to be an assumption that ..."''
	# 23:36, 26 September 2015 ''"Uniformitarianism is the principle, claimed by some to be an assumption, that ..."''
	# 10:23, 27 September 2015‎ ''"Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."''
	# 11:06, 27 September 2015‎ ''"Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."''

			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)
	<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hal2k1#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

			: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)
	<!-- 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 -->
			::Pretty sure {{u\|Charliehdb}} is a ]. ] (]) 06:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Uniformitarianism#HELP.21.21.21.21_Page_has_been_sabotaged_-_Once_again.2C_.22Uniformitarianism.22_is_not_an_assumption
			:::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) ==
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|United States men's national junior ice hockey team}}
	Please be advised that this account was created with the sole purpose of using the 3RR noticeboard and hopefully settling this dispute. I have been posting as the IP in the attempt at dispute resolution linked above. I'm unsure whether or not this would count as a 3RR violation (the warning was issued after the final edit, and I am also at the third revert, meaning that I am also at least due a warning, if not more) but there is quite a lengthy dispute surrounding it for which I have asked administrator intervention.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Stevencocoboy}}
	Since around March of this year, ], first under an IP, then with a registered account, began attempting to add original research (stating conclusions from sources that are not stated by the sources themselves) to the article that directly contradict the reliable sources. Though corrected several times by other editors since then, he continuously re-introduces his edits, insisting that the reliable sources are "wrong" and refuses to acknowledge that his edits constitute original research despite explanations and warnings from at least two other editors.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	The diffs listed above have been part of an attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the opening sentence, which describes uniformitarianism as an "assumption" in accordance with the reliable source underpinning it. ] believes that this contradicts his original research and should be removed from the article.
	] (]) 12:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I've semi-protected the article for one month to at a minimum reduce the disruption from accounts who are not logging in. Another administrator is free to take more focused action against a particular editor.--] (]) 14:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	::Re. Your semi-protected notice, I think it should be clarified that I have been posting and editing under the 217.x IP. It is a dynamic public IP which I have no control over, so not an attempt at sockpuppetry.] (]) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	{{an3\|s}} The report was stale even at the time of posting. I see the editor has now taken to writing huge walls of text so hopefully the edit warring is now over. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Turkey}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Heimdallr of Æsir}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1266124147\|05:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Stevencocoboy}} "/* Respecting consensus of your fellow editors */ new section"
	# ] "(I used to consider myself a Hellenophile (listening to Dalaras, etc.) but thanks to Greeks like Dr.K and Athenean, I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece.)"
	# {{diff\|oldid=683462163\|diff=683473103\|label=Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|683467633\|13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Adding the original link, which is given as the source of this map in Wikimedia Commons: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_lands_92.jpg"
	## {{diff2\|683473103\|14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "I checked out the Talk page and there is obviously no consensus at all. Unlike the situation in Iraq and Iran, there is no regional district or subdivision named "Kurdistan" in Turkey. Also, the map is from 1992 and therefore obsolete."
	# {{diff2\|683427626\|06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Those are two different, separate sources. The precise definition in the original CIA map is "Kurdish-inhabited area". Changing this definition amounts to "POV", while combining separate sources to reach a new result amounts to "original research"."
	# {{diff2\|683308221\|13:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)}} "This is what the original CIA source says. Stop POV pushing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"
	# {{diff2\|683295820\|11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)}} "The CIA map says "Kurdish-inhabited areas", not "Kurdish-majority areas": https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

			::This has gone on long enough. For your own good you need to be blocked a couple days to think about things and you really should be doing one edit and then move on to another topic. As soon as another editor reverts your new edit that should be a huge red ringing warning not to edit that page again until given the go-ahead by other editors on the talk page. This has to stop NOW before your privilege of editing here gets revoked. I was stern with you on your talk page about your 8 reverts, but you stopped and we came to a compromise, and I did not report you. Since then your talk page has been filled by five more minor and major warnings. ] (]) 08:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			:::I can promise stop editing about ice hockey pages in recent days and calm down more because I've make a controversial. I'm sorry again. Thanks. ] (]) 08:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{AN3\|d}} with leave to re-report if reported user breaks his promise above. ] (]) 18:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Thanks, that's good enough for me. ] (]) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you very much. ] (]) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Atsee}}
	Obvious sock of {{vandal\|Lord of Rivendell}}. Will not stop relentless edit-warring. Edit-warring MO identical to other socks. Has been blocked for edit-warring recently. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Note that there's actually a two-week-old SPI on this user still active at ]. --] (]) 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Was blocked then unblocked by {{ul\|Black Kite}}. This is also being discussed at ]. Suggest we close this discussion. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Narcos}}
			# {{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."
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Signedzzz}}
			# {{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:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1266205992\|15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Your edits on Huaynaputina */ new section"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1266206482\|15:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "/* Footnotes */ Reply"
	# {{diff2\|683508974\|18:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683508500 by ] (])"it's an issue of undue weight to include only negative reviews". this version contains the same reviews - explain"
	# {{diff2\|683508285\|18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683507906 by ] (])dont be ridiculous. you made 1 cmt so far, that the reviews are all negative, which you yourself dont even believe"
	# {{diff2\|683507287\|18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683507133 by ] (])no consensus - or discussion - for your change"
	# {{diff2\|683506272\|18:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Reception */ per talk"
	# {{diff2\|683214650\|21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683213820 by ] (])justify your edit on talk"
	# {{diff2\|683213454\|21:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683212909 by ] (])no, re-adding the source of the contradiction, and splitting RT section in 2 is clearly not an improvement. please justify this on talk"
	# {{diff2\|683212721\|21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683211591 by ] (])youve replaced the "positive reviews" self contradiction, moved RT because it's not "positive" enough, not an improvement"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|683236055\|00:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|683508075\|18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

			Discussion at ], user repeatedly deleting footnotes without a valid reason on a Featured Article ''''']''''' (]) 16:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			:This user clearly wanted an edit war. Witness their utterly unhelpful edit summaries in their three reverts:
	Ongoing discussion at ].
			:* - there is no inline "right there"; that's the precise reason I put a "fact" tag there.
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			:* - 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) ==
	Signedzzz has been edit warring with myself and another user for the last couple days (there are likely more than the seven reverts provided above, but four in 20 minutes should be enough to prove the edit warring exists). There is a discussion on the talk page but I'm not honestly sure what his objection is, other than there being "no consenus" for said changes (despite the fact that two other users find the changes to be improvements). The user in question has also been blocked thrice since last November for edit warring. ''']''' 19:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Matriarchy}}
	:This user has made 2 comments on talk:
	*one in which he agrees with the other user that the reviews are all negative (and therefore the section needs rewriting) - which he doesn't believe, since his preferred version contains precisely the same reviews
	*and today, he claims to have added a positive review, which is simply untrue
	:Reverting his reverts seems to be the only way to get him to engage on article talk. Unfortunately his 2 comments there indicate that, so far at least, he is unwilling or unable to make any honest or useful comments. ] (]) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	::I've explained why I feel the version you keep reverting from is better . You haven't explained why you keep reverting to that version. ''']''' 19:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::*You say you've explained. Which of your two comments contained the explanation, the or the ?
	:::* explained very clearly why I prefer the old, stable version. ] (]) 19:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::*Did you read it? What is "The reviews selected by Rotten Tomatoes clearly make more sense in the RT section" if it's not an explanation? Why do you claim that a) the reviews were all negative and b) that you have added a positive review? These are both completely false claims. ] (]) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::*Now you are using a comment you only just added after filing this report, to cover up for the fact that you never attempted to explain your reverts before. ] (]) 19:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry but it's hard to take seriously any comment that opens by dismissing concerns raised by two users with the phrase "which no one believes." You should also see how other articles handle critical reception: it's not the way you think it should be. Finally, your little comment does not justify reverting four times in 20 minutes. That's the issue here and I'm done responding to your pointless queries. If you'd like to consider improving the article, great; that discussion goes on the talk page. ''']''' 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::::*And by the way, I already , and answered, your only explanation "putting the negative review separately is better", before your belated comment just now confirming that. I shouldn't have to guess what your argument actually is, you should just state it to begin with. ] (]) 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	I've blocked for a week. Calidum: it takes two to edit war and you are not blameless here. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|36.228.143.128}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Poppy straw}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|RajanMarwaha}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1266181569\|13:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1266162425\|10:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1266057097\|22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1266056003\|22:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} ""

	;Diffs of ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1266184214\|13:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
	# {{diff2\|683502828\|18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Opium Poppy straw can be one of several different things: ## What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for tr"
	# {{diff\|oldid=683505997\|diff=683508758\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|683506768\|18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
	## {{diff2\|683507171\|18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
	## {{diff2\|683507544\|18:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
	## {{diff2\|683508758\|18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
	# {{diff2\|683515494\|19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Decorative Dried Flower producer/growers and wholesalers ( such as UK FLOWER POWER) based in Europe, hand pick the decorative mature seeded pods/heads with or without the stalks for use as floral decorations for visual gratification in arrangements, these"
	# {{diff2\|683517789\|19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
	# {{diff2\|683520478\|20:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
	# {{diff2\|683523271\|20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Editing requested"

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


			<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>

	Well past 3RR ] (])(]) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

	*I've just given the user advice to discuss desired changes on the article talk page and to go in smaller chunks, requesting specific changes. We'll see what the user does based on that advice. —''']''' (]) 21:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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


	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Hell in a Cell (2015)}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Lord Laitinen}}

	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683523276&oldid=683523111
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525106&oldid=683524649
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525934&oldid=683525476
	User has clearly broken the 3RR, he's claiming that the content can't be added because it hasn't been officially announced but ] says otherwise. Also claiming that the source isn't reliable by his standards. I could easily get 5 more references that say the same exact thing, but the problem is when he undoes these edits he's also re-adding unreferenced material I removed from the page.

	Additionally, this was left on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFunkatastic&type=revision&diff=683526014&oldid=683524744
	Claiming I've been adding unsourced material, even though as you clearly can see from the sources above that I was adding sourced content and removing unsourced and inaccurate content. And he was reverting said edits meaning he was doing otherwise.] (]) 20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

	Would also like to refer to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=681980048 where roughly two weeks ago I reported countless users/IP's as the page ] was under intense vandalism on the day of the event. I think it's possible one of the users that owned one/multiple of these IP's/usernames could possibly be attempting some sort of "revenge/retribution" as I reported a large amount of users. Normally I wouldn't assume this but seeing as this user is edit warring on another wrestling page I felt necessary to point it out. I've discontinued editing this page until this report is reviewed as the user showed no signs of stopping.] (]) 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

	{{AN3\|comment}} My main complaint against this user was their clear violations of ], though their source, which contained naught but speculation and events expected, but not assured to happen, was a secondary concern of mine. In summary, I am simply trying to make sure that this user does not pass off speculated events and announcements which have not yet happened as facts. I also wish to note that this edit war started with a blatant insult by ] against my editing skills in the comment section of his first revert of my correction. Thank you. <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT"><span style="color:#800080">'''Lord Laitinen''' (])</span></span> 21:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

	:User keeps claiming WP:Crystal was violated, despite<ref>http://www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/another-bout-announced-for-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-spoiler/</ref><ref>http://www.pwmania.com/spoilers-wwe-smackdown-taping-results-for-10115</ref><ref>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2573757-wwe-smackdown-spoilers-complete-results-and-analysis-for-october-1</ref><ref>http://whatculture.com/wwe/wwe-spoiler-big-match-added-to-hell-in-a-cell.php</ref><ref>http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0929/602170/spoiler-another-main-event-revealed-for-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-pay/</ref><ref>http://www.24wrestling.com/spoiler-another-hell-in-a-cell-match-announced/</ref><ref>http://www.prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-News-New-Hell-in-a-Cell-match-announced-Smackdown-spoiler-44233</ref><ref>http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/625069-new-match-added-to-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-ppv-spoilers</ref><ref>http://www.inquisitr.com/2458973/on-upcoming-smackdown-wwe-to-announce-roman-reigns-match-for-hell-in-a-cell-card/</ref> sources all over the internet saying the same exact thing. This is clearly a spoiler and not speculation (Show is taped Tuesday and airs Thursday) ] clearly overrides ]. As for the user in question as you can see by the three edits I linked above, he reverted three of my edits (technically four because the first edit reverted two edits I made) based on his own interpretation of the guidelines and not the actual guidelines in place. ] (]) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:12, 31 December 2024

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs from other articles (language POV and edit war)

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Remsense: Calling a user a "scoundrel" after you've already made several personal attacks? Not wise. There's already a case building up against you. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a set phrase. I've indulged your repeated baiting of me more than enough at this point, so from now on please refrain from speaking to me unless you have something about site content you need to discuss. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Calling a user a "scoundrel" is a personal attack. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

@331dot: Remsense has already made 3 personal attacks on this matter. Will you hold them accountable for that? Or will you let them get away with it, again? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that you move on from this matter. WP:DROPTHESTICK. I've already told you how you can pursue a grievance if that's something you really want to do. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK Ah, the classic last retort of someone who has no rebuttal and knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't claim that it is. It's advice. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

If you have evidence that they have truly not recognized their errors Remsense has already been blocked twice before for edit warring: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Remsense. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, they're exempt from 3RR as 3RRNO clearly exempts reverts of your own reverts for exactly the reason 331dot mentioned. If there are other policies they have violated that might lead to a block, no, they're not off that hook. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Which point of 3RRNO do you claim absolves Remsense of this violation? Be specific. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Daniel very clearly answered this already. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: No, he didn't. Point 1 of WP:3RRNO means reverting yourself doesn't add to the 3RR count, not that it subtracts from it. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That is the most common method of remedying a 3RR or 1RR violation, and is very common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: So you admit a violation did occur. And "remedying" ≠ exempting. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYER. You really need to move on, this is becoming disruptive. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want me to "move on" from pursuing fair enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? As an administrator, you should be careful with your words. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait until they find out that there is no policy definition of "revert". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: What's the point of your comment? Instead of being cryptic, why don't you state it outright? 19:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Policy pages are descriptive not proscriptive, and a lot of things are outright missing, e.g. the definition of what is forbidden by 3RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Policy pages are... not proscriptive False. Read WP:3RR:

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 or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

a lot of things are outright missing, e.g. the definition of what is forbidden by 3RR False. It's very clearly stated at WP:3RR. How is someone like you an administrator if you don't know this? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What is the policy definition of a revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: WP:REV. Do I really need to take you on a tour of Misplaced Pages's policies and basic vocabulary? Aren't you an administrator? You should've already known this. 2605:8D80:5400:3F29:A8DC:F22C:78C3:6011 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As you said above, that's not a policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much. Stevencocoboy (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

Categories: