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 03:20, 2 February 2016 view sourceSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits + comment← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:39, 16 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,002 editsm Archiving 6 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	<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 = ~~306~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
	\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f		\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|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 48 hours) ==
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Scuderia Ferrari}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Baldoz}}
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Muhammad}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Trinacrialucente}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1269468204\|21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|702384030\|06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 702381414 by ] Already advanced conversation on Talk page. Present arguments there if you feel compelled to edit."
			# {{diff2\|1269467160\|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|702376738\|05:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 702363002 by ] (]) LOL!! you are definitely new at this. That is blatant WP:POV. Reverting back to consensus."
	# {{diff2\|~~702347256~~\|01:01, 30 January ~~2016~~ (UTC)}} "/* ~~Household~~ */ ~~rephrased~~ ~~to eliminate need for "citation needed"~~"		# {{diff2\|1269462212\|20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Fixed discrepancies made by user Lobo151"
			#
	# {{diff2\|702195056\|01:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 702189914 by ] Not "sneaking" anything. No consensus was reached on talk page, so feel free to ask for moderation, dispute etc. As I have shown, very willing to participate."
			#
	# {{diff\|oldid=701997510\|diff=702188255\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC) to 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)}}
			#
	## {{diff2\|702186539\|00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Household */ no "traditional sources" mention she had reached puberty. That is WP:SYNTH"
			#
	## {{diff2\|702188255\|00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Household */ per Talk page, added "secondary source" from BBC stating Mohammed "bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves ""

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			# {{diff2\|1269466345\|20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers ]"
			# {{diff2\|1269467260\|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording ]"

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

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] ] 21:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for three months) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Pudukkottai}}
	He has edit warred so much that the page is now under full protection. The editor in question is also edit warring on other pages, but this is his most blatant disregard for rules. Furthermore the page in question is subject to discretionary sanctions. ] (]) 11:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F}}
	*'''Comment''' I fear there are several errors in the report. Of course ] is right in pointing out that the article has been placed under full protection, but that is not one user's fault. Sure, ] can be partly blamed. So can I, for that matter. So can ] himself as well as four-five other users. However, these points are relevant
	*# Several users, including ] (and myself) performed more three edits, but ''not the same edits''. Quite the contrary, intensive editing and intensive discussions '''and agreements and compromises''' on the talk page was bringing the matter. Editing an article many times a day is not forbidden.
	*# I regret to say that while ] was active in discussing the matter, the reporter did not partake in the discussion of this matter and instead swept in to remove the consensus that had been established, including restoring a source '''everybody''' agreed was not ] and, worse, both removing tags everybody agreed on and restoring claims that was not found in any of the sources. Key to preventing edit warring is discussing the matter, as many users did, including ] but not ] (this surprised me a bit, as ] is usually very good at taking part in talk page discussions).
	*# Apparently no warning of 3RR was given to ].
	::So in short, I suggest this report be closed. Nobody violated 3RR, the reported user did take part in an active discussion, the reporter (who also edit warred) neither warned the user nor took part in the discussion. We should all, myself included, have used talk pages even more and edited less, but no 3RR was broken. ] (]) 13:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
	:::@] I wanted to discuss this matter on the TP, but the article was going through a tsunami of edits. How to discuss when the article is so unstable with one version being replaced by another. My two reverts were to versions which were "stable" as I pointed out. I never said they were "good versions". Whenever an edit war erupts its best to revert to a pre editwar version and go from there. ] (]) 13:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
	::::@] Sure, I can understand your reaction even though I think discussing it would have been better. I'm not blaming anyone here, just pointing out that we're all a bit guilty and that nobody did anything blockable. ] (]) 13:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' Article fully protected three days by ]. In any case, the reverts listed above span more than 24 hours. It is possible that a longer period of full protection may be necessary. It is hard to imagine real article improvement taking place while so much turmoil is going on. ] (]) 00:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
	::Thanks, Ed. And the sad truth is very little "real article improvement" has been taking place at all, as certain users have been holding the article hostage by demanding "consensus" before ANY content can be changed...which they have absolutely no interested in achieving because they prefer the original edits. The only way any substantive, objective changes can be made at this point is with outside oversight (i.e. moderation) unfortunately. If you look at the changes leading up to this block, you'll see exactly what I mean (I and several other users were engaged in a substantive conversation/debate/edit and had reached compromise and consensus, when one of the aforementioned "factions" reverted the page to the pre-conversation version. This has been the unfortunate M.O.).] (]) 02:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
	:::], ] - Thank you for protecting the article, but I have every reason to believe that the only effect that protection will have is to delay the edit-warring by three days. The purpose of protecting an article that is being edit-warred is supposed to be, if I recall, to force the edit-warriors to discuss, but the edit-warriors have unfortunately shown at DRN and on the talk page that they have no intention of discussing in an orderly manner. They engage in name-calling, such as the above argument that the article is "being held hostage". Muslim editors have even made the bizarre demand that a special Muslim arbitration committee be given ] of the article; fortunately, this demand was hatted. One editor says that outside oversight (i.e., moderation) is necessary, but, in my opinion, too many editors are of mindsets that will not support moderation. I think that topic-bans may be needed. The subject of ] is covered by ] precisely because this attitude of hostility has been going on for years. ] (]) 16:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::::This is of course a difficult and tricky situation, but there is very little we can do. The article is indefinitely semi-protected (I will restore the protection once the full protection expires). If autoconfirmed editors behave disruptively, and even DRN has no effect, arbitration enforcement and eventually arbcom should be attempted. But if there is a continuous edit warring between established editors, one can not expect that a typical admin patrolling 3RRN or ANI will easily make a correct decision, since the history goes back for years.--] (]) 16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:::::I agree that this is a difficult and tricky situation. DRN very seldom has any effect on disruptive editors; it only works with editors who can be persuaded to collaborate. DRN volunteers will fail ArbCom is not needed. ArbCom has already heard the case, and has already put ] in effect; what may be needed may be ]. ] (]) 20:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::::::In case other admins are looking at this dispute and wondering what can be done, a by ] may give some background. After explaining the problem, he suggests a general 1RR at ] plus a 500-30 restriction. Since the whole article is under Discretionary sanctions due to , this is within admin discretion. ] (]) 23:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Metal Gear chronology
			# {{diff2\|1269501838\|00:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	}} <br />
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268811016\|diff=1269371545\|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) to 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TJD2}}
			## {{diff2\|1269370583\|09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1269371545\|10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Previous version reverted to: ]//
			# {{diff2\|1269502083\|00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	(Has repeatedly made the same edit as far back as September 2015)

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			:See also the history of ] ] 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:See link to my request to have the page protected ] and that request's denial ]
			::{{AN3\|p\|three months}} This has been going on regularly since the last protection expired, and got really fierce lately. Since the article comes under ARBIPA, I will leave a CTOPS notice on talk.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Afghan mujahideen}} <br />
	Repeatedly trying to make the same change over four months. Antagonistic attitude and refusal to work with other editors or discuss on the talk page. Did not provide a source for his claims until his most recent set wave of revisions; the sources themselves are ambiguous and can be interpreted multiple ways, and contradict a separate source that clearly states the exact opposite of his claim. -- ] (]) 21:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Boackandwhite}}
	:Funny, I did not edit war as in the last change I made substantial changes with more than three sources backing me up. You are the one trying to make this into an administrative issue and being antagonistic towards me just like that other IP Address was before you. I am asking you nicely to please stop trying to defame my work on WP, as I have been an editor for over 8 years and you seem to have just started in 2015. I will not speak on this topic anymore, as I don't wish to get into more arguments over something so frivolous. Have a good day. ] (]) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
	::I've been an editor for far longer than seven years but gave up my account long ago in favor of IP-only editing. Also, the rules clearly state "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Choosing to add a source the last time doesn't change the fact that you tried to make the same change more than three times. You even asked me to find a source that says it's canon, and when I did and sought to use it as a point of discussion, you turned around and said "No, mine is the one true source, don't undo it" (Despite me bringing that same source up in my attempted discussion and another user using it as evidence to the contrary) and stonewalled me. If you don't want your work "defamed", how about engaging in an actual discussion instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, that's it, bye?" -- ] (]) 21:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
	:You mentioned one source in passing. Citing a source in the edit summary = / = properly sourced material. I actually took the extra step and found not one but FOUR sources to prove MGR:R is not canon; citing them within the article itself. Kojima has said on multiple occasions that it is not within the continuity of the MG/MGS series, and that it is a spinoff. He also states that it is in a parallel universe from the rest of the series; meaning it has no bearing on the official canon. Couple this with the fact that it was also developed by an entirely different company with Kojima's ideas all but thrown out, this is a non canon entry in the same vein as ''Snake's Revenge'' on the NES and ''Metal Gear Solid: Ghost Babel'' on the GBC. ] (]) 23:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
	::I was talking about on the talk page, which again, you ignored. More to the point, being a spin-off does not and has never explicitly meant something is non-canon; you can find plenty of spin-offs of other properties that occur in tandem with the original story. However, you have yet to provide a source that explicitly states "Rising is not canon":
	:::*Your does not mention Rising at all, so that is irrelevant to this discussion.
	:::*Your , as I mentioned on the talk page and another user mentioned in a previous description, says at the 0:33 timestamp that "it is a continuation of the saga, a continuation of the story after Metal Gear Solid 4". He also states at 0:49 that "It's a little bit different than the story I had in mind for what would happen after Metal Gear Solid 4" and "you could kind of say it's a parallel story as well as a continuation". A parallel story is not necessarily one set in a parallel universe; two different narratives occurring at the same time would be parallel stories (See "Hamlet" and "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead"). Not once in that video is the word "parallel dimension" said. Also, being different from what Kojima originally had in mind also does not explicitly mean "non-canon", in the same way that a TV show's creator leaving a series and another lead writer taking over with their own intended plot line is not rendered non-canon because it's not what the original creator planned. If it did, every Metal Gear game released from here on is non-canon, as Kojima is no longer involved in the series. Kojima Productions were the ones who wrote the script (specifically Etsu Tamari, who was even before Platinum was brought in, so that stuff about "all Kojima's ideas being thrown out" is inaccurate), and seeing as how there were never any Kojima-directed games set after MGS4, it's not like it contradicts any other material.
	:::*Your is (very roughly) translated from Japanese to English (evidenced by the fact it suggests Raiden is a new character), and intent can easily have been lost in the conversion. It's also fairly clear that it's referring to how KojiPro decided to drop the Solid subtitle and set it at the end of the timeline so that Platinum would not be constrained by trying to fit it between MGS2 and MGS4, which has been . Nowhere does it say "parallel dimension" or "non canon". (If not having "Solid" in the name was enough to be non-canon, that would remove the original two Metal Gear games from MSX from the timeline, which I think we all agree would be nonsense.)
	:::*Your source only says that it's not a part of the Solid series, which no one would argue. Again, however, the Kojima quote it discusses says nothing about it not being canon or being set in a parallel world. The only one who interprets that is the article's writer, and considering PS Lifestyle is not , any interpretations by the author not derived from a specific statement by the developer should be taken with a grain of salt.
	::Compared to , which explicitly states that "Yes, this is canon." But again, you would know all this if you had actually looked at the discussion on the talk page as I suggested, where we SHOULD be having this discussion, and not ignoring other editors. -- ] (]) 00:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
	:No, the PSL source states it's not apart of the main continuity...big difference. Also the source you list has the creators of MGR (Platinum Games) discussing where the story falls. They don't own Metal Gear, just the right to make one '''''spinoff''''' title for the seies. Even if they say it's canon that's like you or me writing an article and citing it as a source for canonicity. Until Hideo Kojima himself says it's canon it cannot be classified as such. All we know is that Kojima says it's a part of a parallel universe (meaning does not take place within the same continuity). This is all we need to derive the conclusion that it is not a part of the main story. ALSO there is the issue of an official promo photo that clearly does not feature MGR as a title in the main canon. ] (])
	::You're ignoring what I'm saying. The quote from Kojima in PSL doesn't say it's not part of the story, only that it takes place afterwards and is not part of the "Solid" series, which we know already; the only one saying it's not a part of the overall story is the person who wrote the article based on what they think Kojima meant, which as you stated is "like you or me writing an article and citing it as a source for canonicity". Your promo photo also doesn't include Portable Ops, which we've already established as (mostly) canon. And the person who says "yes, it's canon" in the video I cited is Yuji Korekado, the creative producer from Kojima Production/Konami, the people who DO own Metal Gear and would ultimately decide its canonicity, not Platinum. And finally, once again, not one of your sources has had a Kojima quote saying the words "parallel universe" as you claim, and I've already established why "parallel story" is not sufficient. -- ] (]) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ;
	== IP users removing sourced content (Result: ) ==
	(I'm not 'reporting' anyone, but merely asking for advice) - While the talk page is always the best option, this can prove difficult when dealing with IP users who may have valid points, but do not respond to posts or messages. Does the 3RR count when IP users fail to communicate while persistently removing sourced content? Surely someone's failure to communicate cannot be their green light to remove whatever they want. Best, --] (]) 23:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
	:In my view, all reverts count, from IP users as well as registered users. Just be sure that you notify the IP editor of the AN3 filing. ] (]) 19:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
	::That's a lie. In EdJohnston's view, reverts by registered users of anonymous edits don't count: 4 reverts in 25 minutes "isn't a 3RR violation" and doesn't even warrant a warning. ] (]) 09:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:::Regardless, I am not sure how I'm supposed to deal with this. --] (]) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Mudar Zahran}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|GirlForTruth}}

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|702530428\|03:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)}} "3 sources used, all three known and reliable sources, your act is vandalism against wiki rules"
	# {{diff2\|702527535\|03:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)}} "The sources are Israel's State Channel 2 TV's website, very reliable and worldly, inline with Wiki rules"
	# {{diff2\|702518173\|01:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Makeandtoss is vandalizing the page, deleting material with reliable source.This against Wiki rules"
	# {{diff2\|702367767\|03:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)}} "makeandtoss is vandalizing this page, I have used the second most read News site in Israel"

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|702529041\|03:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|702532211\|03:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Edit-warring at Mudar Zahran */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			Boackandwhite, a new account with fewer than 100 edits, has already racked up an impressive record of disruption, even if this is more due to ] than bad faith. Boackandwhite's talk page is filled with warnings about and
	# {{diff2\|702531644\|03:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)}} "/* "Influence" section */ new section"

			At ], Boackandwhite reinstated unsourced material after it was challenged (primarily by myself, but also by other ) <u>five separate times in less than a month</u>, eventually merging a source that plainly fails ] to validate the proposed change (and that's excluding multiple IP edits that cannot be conclusively linked to Boackandwhite). In a talk page thread initiated by Boackandwhite, I attempted to explain why his edit had been contested: However, Boackandwhite stopped replying and instead resumed edit warring, apparently convinced that since the U.S., the most powerful member of the NATO alliance, clearly supported the Afghan mujahideen, that must also mean that NATO as a whole can be considered allied to the mujahideen—no sourcing or verification necessary.
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} While they were warned after their last revert, the accusations of vandalism by other editors weigh against them. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 04:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

			Even though this can be considered a low-intensity edit war, Boackandwhite's to understand Misplaced Pages's sourcing/content policies and insistence on reverting to restore the perceived ] to our article, coupled with a break in communication from this user, has reached a point where some kind of administrative action may be warranted. Thank you for your consideration.] (]) 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Israel animal related conspiracy theories (Result: No action)==

			:no. i added NATO for his support to gulf war coalition (that included mujaheddin) with operation anchor guardian. ] (]) 09:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{pagelinks\|Israel-related animal conspiracy theories}}
			::{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} As noted, more about ] than anything else.
	*{{userlinks\|Zozoulia}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	I've attempted to change the article above, but every time, I get reversed by a user.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br />
	I am trying to get rid of Stormfront being used as a reference, the heavy bias (including only Israeli commentary on the matter of the birds or animals themselves), and the weasel words being used throughout to insinuate a vehemently pro-Israeli position.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|94.187.8.87}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	I would ask the administrators to review (or possibly lock) the article until some sort of resolve can be met. I attempted to initiate dialogue on the talk page, however, I was instead given an insinuation of anti-semitism from the same particular user.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	I ask the admins to review page, and see to it that it gets cleaned up, for now, I'd even recommend it for deletion. ] (]) 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	I've added ] to the report header, since this must be the person you refer to as 'the same particular user'. Let me know if this is a mistake. ] (]) 19:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:Thank you for adding me to this conversation.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:] decided to unilaterally delete several sections of the article in question without any proper discussion on the article's talk page. That itself is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. This is apparently not the first time that he has unilaterally made deletions from an existing Misplaced Pages article that relates to Israel and/or Jews. I therefore request that his deletes from this current article be reverted until a proper Misplaced Pages review process takes place.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:In his initial response to me he made several claims that belie a NPOV. While I did not accuse him of antisemitism per se, his assumption I did so is defensive and revealing. The following are, inter alia, some of his reasons for unilateral deletion:
			This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine ] concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ] (]) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|p\|three days}} by {{u\|Randykitty}} ] (]) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	:1. "In the "commentary" section, not a single Palestinian or Iranian voice is provided, despite Palestinians and Iranians being the primary witnesses of such events." This is simply untrue, so much so that one has to question whether ] bothered to read the article in its entirety. The article quotes five Egyptians, one Saudi, one Lebanese, the president of the Palestinian Authority, two Palestinian news agencies, and an Iranian one as well. The article also quotes Irish, British, American, and Canadian journalists. I have mentioned to ] that if he can find any Palestinian or Iranian authorities who should be quoted he is welcome to add any relevant comments that they have made.

	:2. "The whole article weighs heavily in a bias in favour of Israel (for crying out loud, the article even has some Israeli bird specialist working for the government who no one ever heard of dismissing the claims--of course Israel will dismiss the claims!)" The Israeli "bird specialist" (the proper term is "avian ecologist") is quoted in 947 news accounts that I personally have found online in languages using the Latin alphabet (i.e., not Hebrew), including, for example, in Italian, Romanian and Indonesian. Maybe ] has never heard of him (which is not the proper standard for selecting an individual for quotation in a Misplaced Pages article), but plenty of other people have and rely on him as an expert in his field. He is a published author as well. Yes, he is an Israeli, but that does not impeach his authority on the subject at hand, unless one assumes all Israelis should automatically be disqualified from being quoted in Misplaced Pages. Being an Israeli does not automatically make someone "a spokesman for Israel," which ] assumes he is without offering any evidence. This is quite revealing.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations}}
	:3. "The article was written in such a way so as to ridicule the opposing argument, while heavily insinuating that these 'conspiracy theories' have no merit." Does ] believe they do have merit? I challenge anyone to find any term in the text that could be described as "ridicule," but yes, conspiracy theories such as these are absurd, even if they are widely believed in the Middle East. Indeed, the article quotes Saudi prince Bandar as dismissing the claims, and a Lebanese journalist who tries to explain why conspiracy theories thrive in the the Arab world and help define its political culture. Which, by the way, is the reason why this article is important to retain in Misplaced Pages.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|46.217.186.173}}
	:4. "Otherwise, this entire article seems like it could have been written by IDF (Not saying it was, but one wouldn't be able to tell the difference)." Well, first of all, I am not employed by the IDF and never have been. Neither I nor my wife nor my children have served in the IDF. And anyone who is truly familiar with the IDF can readily tell the difference between a legitimate military document and this article. But what on earth does the IDF have to do with this anyway? This insinuation, like many others, is most revealing.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:5. ] unilaterally deleted from the text a reference that one of these conspiracy theories was repeated on a neo-Nazi web site. Removing that indicates a desire to whitewash the severity of the conspiracy theory itself. Its inclusion in the text is vital because it indicates a possible source for these conspiracy theories, as well as the existence of a ready audience for them.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:I could go on, but these are the main points I wish to raise. For the record, I did not initiate or write the original article but did make substantial editions several years after it was first posted.
			# {{diff2\|1269599524\|13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:] (]) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269595946\|12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269506198\|01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269480789\|22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269469278\|21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) FASISM TOWARDS MACEDONIA"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	::Neo-nazi websites, no matter how much they support your claim(s) or attempt to paint your opponents into a corner, are not sources, ever!!! ] (]) 21:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269596351\|12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:::Really? Would you also remove references to a neo-Nazi web site on an article that discusses neo-Nazism? Have you done so in the past? Do you know that there is a Misplaced Pages article on this particular neo-Nazi website? See ] 03:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

	::::Yes, but I don't see why you'd use a neo-nazi website to support claims in an article just because they agree with your point. It shows a lack of judgement with your other edits as well. ] (]) 04:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Persistent edit warring. ] (]) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::The neo-Nazi website is NOT quoted. It is NOT used to "support claims" (clearly, any rational human being knows there is no such thing as a "super rat"). It is cited to draw attention to the type of audience that identifies with and propagates these conspiracy theories. 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC) ] (]) 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] ] 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' No action, since editors are now discussing. Be aware that this article is under a ] due to the subject matter. ], please remember to sign your comments. ] (]) 14:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Thought I did and just corrected it. Thanks for the reminder. ] (]) 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Semi-protected~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Latin~~ ~~American~~ ~~cuisine~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739)}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|96.233.85.209}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Asafviki}}
	<!-- 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:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			# {{diff2\|1269613200\|14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1269609369\|14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
	# (3 reverts here)
			# {{diff2\|1269569554\|09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."
	# (1 revert here, under account 71.174.172.185)

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1269613702\|14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	~~Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:~~
	*Semi-protected for one week.--] (]) 07:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 31 hours) ==

			Also LOUT socking with ]. --<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">]--]</sup> 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Santiago de Compostela}}
			:{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. ] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|83.49.183.241}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SmartLynx Airlines Estonia}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|702407410\|11:08, 30 sausio 2016 (UTC)}} "i CORRECTED SOME ERRORS"
	# {{diff2\|702407655\|11:11, 30 sausio 2016 (UTC)}} "WYGEFDO"
	# {{diff2\|702569544\|11:05, 31 sausio 2016 (UTC)}} "yerqdg we ySGUF"

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TG-article}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|702569645\|11:07, 31 sausio 2016 (UTC)}} ""

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1269668652\|20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
			# {{diff2\|1269664490\|19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			# {{diff2\|1269638908\|17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Vandalism! Testing pages, and vandal! Fed Up! I propose block 3 months. ]<small>]</small> 11:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}}. It's a dynamic IP, ], it can't be blocked for very long or it could easily affect other people. Thanks for reporting, but for another time, ] is the right noticeboard for vandalism. ] \| ] 11:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

	:Thanks very much :).--]<small>]</small> 12:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

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

			Also edit warring at ], ], ] and ]. User has been told to discuss edits on talk pages on multiple occasions, and seemingly refuses to do so. ] (]) 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hillary Clinton}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ICat Master}}

			:@] This is not a 3RR violation. I see two reverts. ] ] 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			::No it’s not a 3RR violation - but it’s a user that’s consistently edit warring across multiple pages and refusing to engage in talk pages, which is why I believe it still belongs on the edit warring noticeboard.
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702216430
			::Edit: I’ll get the rest of the diffs here in a sec… I used Twinkle for the original report. ] (]) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702337889
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269663239\|reversion 1}}, {{diff2\|1269667404\|reversion 2}} (which was following a pertial reinstatement of their already reverted content)
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702400923 / https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702337889
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269638888\|partial reinstatement}} of reverted content, followed by {{diff2\|1269666092\|reinstating}} his reverted edit
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702465845
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269664088\|reinstating}} their previously reverted content
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702476448
			:::* ] - {{diff2\|1269664490\|reinstates}} their reverted edit, then {{diff2\|1269668652\|again partially reinstating}} their reverted edit.
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702478164
			:::* ] - legitimately and in good faith {{diff2\|1269497042\|alters}} a template, but then after being reverted {{diff2\|1269636269\|doubles down}} and reinstates the edit.
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702478445
			:::The user has previously been blocked for this exact same behaviour by ], and is nt responding to talk page messages. ] (]) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702683489
			::::{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] (]) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	# https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hillary_Clinton&diff=prev&oldid=702693159

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wolf Man (2025 film)}}
	Brand new account, edits only in American presidential election articles, approximately 9RR in 3 days on this article. Requesting indef. block of this SPA throwaway account and likely sock of {{userlinks\|Mouse001}}, itself blocked by ] as a SPA / likely sock. — reporting here as fastest / least drama resolution. Thanks! - ] (]) 04:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|190.201.157.28}}
	:I just want to note, there is clear consensus for what I was reverting, and no consensus for what the other editor was reverting to, so my revisions were warranted.] (]) 04:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::Please fight any urge to excuse the editor as misguided and needing guidance about consensus and edit warring — they've clearly been around the block on other accounts here. - ] (]) 04:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:::Another note, the consensus for my revisions can be clearly seen on the and the reverts on that same content by other editors. During the time of those reverts, Wikidemon was the only one opposing the content. Wikidemon and Scjessey were the only ones opposing the content on the subsequent talk page discussion. I do not believe I was misguided about consensus.--] (]) 04:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::::Those diffs are a clue as to the possible sock-master but that's beyond the scope of this page. - ] (]) 05:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:::::I'm lost for words. I dearly hope the administrator will rely upon facts and not alleged implications.--] (]) 05:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1269704227\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269703995\|23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269673354\|20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Reception */"
			# {{diff2\|1269640157\|17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Circumcision}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1269704229\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Cirflow}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page

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

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Until Dawn (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: and a few others.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562}}
	<!-- 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 the second above.

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
			# {{diff2\|1269723705\|01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	:Note: This might be actionable as a 3RR if someone could show that #4 and #5 are actually reverts. ] (]) 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269722106\|01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269715862\|00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269684805\|diff=1269714293\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269714124\|00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Enough with the vandalism already"
			## {{diff2\|1269714293\|00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
			# {{diff2\|1269716711\|00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1269716853\|00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Will Horton}}
			# {{diff2\|1269719613\|01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* We edit by consensus */ new section"
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Aliveness Cascade}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Previous version reverted to:
			I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...

			Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: ].
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|702756762\|14:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 702756089 by (]) I've made incremental constructive changes. Your mass erasure of them is "mass-change" and vandalism and edit-warring. I will address your reasonable concerns when if you don't keep undoing."
	# {{diff2\|702755919\|14:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 702754765 by (]) And you ignore mine. I was attempting to address some of your concerns when you undid again. Erasing everything I've done is bullying and destructive."
	# {{diff2\|702754471\|13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 702751193 by (]) My editing has been to update the article and add useful and pertinent info - and is in good faith. Undoing it all en masse is vandalism."
	# {{diff2\|702739729\|11:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 702721260 by ] (]) Undoing massive vandalism, and restoring days of work"

			The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: ]
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|702751233\|13:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|702756171\|14:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|702756463\|14:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} ""

			Regards, — ] ] 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|702751663\|13:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "/* 2016 update of article */"
	# {{diff2\|702751861\|13:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "/* 2016 update of article */"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	User has been warned about their mass-changes to the ] article, which include (and are not limited to) ] and ]. Their edits change the ] of the page, and makes it fail per the qualities that are maintained by the Misplaced Pages Soap Opera Project. Attempt was made on both the talk page of the Will page, and their talk page (per warnings) to stop their edits, however, they've decided to continue on making their edits, in an attempt to also potentially ] to their preferred made edits. '''<small style="font-size:85%;">]</small>{{#if:]\|\|]}}''' <small style="font-size:85%;">]</small>{{#if:]\|\|]}} 14:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	: Now, user is ignoring the talk page to continually revert and edit the page, regardless of their warnings, and it seems this is an attempt to continue to own their preferred preference of the page, a.k.a. to maintain all of their edits. This seems very problematic to me, and it's clear this user is ] in coordinance of Misplaced Pages's rules and guidelines, especially in concern of ]. '''<small style="font-size:85%;">]</small>{{#if:]\|\|]}}''' <small style="font-size:85%;">]</small>{{#if:]\|\|]}} 14:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)\
	::{{AN3\|b}} – 24 hours. ] (]) 21:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Suicide of Rohith Vemula}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Terabar}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|702762583\|15:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 702761862 by ] (]) Do we have to mention the Colour of his body too? What do you mean by adding his caste non-sense?"
	# {{diff2\|702735829\|10:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 702617738 by ] (]): No meaning to add the caste non-sense. Restore sourced content, . (])"
	# {{diff2\|702577840\|12:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 702477766 by ] (]): Remove Caste nonsense and restore sourced content. . (])"
	# {{diff2\|702477766\|20:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)}} "Remove Caste Non-sense."

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|702761597\|14:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)}} "/* 3rr warning */ new section"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# ]
	# He seems to have a strong bias against the organization ABVP and has flooded the talk page with their criticism (which belongs on the organizations page).

	;<u>Comments:</u>

	First he edit warr`ed to introduce the caste as Dalit. When new reports contradicted it he wanted to purge the topic itself. I kept his most recent two content addition (which are letter-by-letter copy paste) by paraphrasing them without removing his references. But he has reverted them too. His sole interest has been this article since Jan 21. He has been blocked for edit warring one month back only. ] (]) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:
	: Let the admin check whether there is any violation or not. He is a new user who is not familiar with Misplaced Pages rules.Regarding the edits he changes some words, changed the meaning of sentences and added unnecessary tags even where the source was present to suit his own POV. . There was an allegation made by that their leader was attacked by Rohith (the guy who did suicide). I presented a source where the medical reports said that there was no attack done. See and Firstly he said that I can add it in the article.
	: He said ''"You may add the sources that you prefer and present this point of view but other secondary sources are equally valid and you may not purge the entire incident."'' And when I added it. He removed it by saying that its over dramatic. He then started edit warring on Caste saying that he does not belong to Dalit caste and removing the ] (]) 16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:: You are mistaken Terabar, I never deleted your reference but only paraphrased content keeping your references. Encyclopedic articles should be in neutral tone. Your narration gives undue weight due to its elaborate and melodramatic copy of original report. You should paraphrase it to avoid copyvio and improve readability. And you should not remove every mention of referenced content that does not fall in line with your POV. The content that you are trying to suppress is well sourced and subject of more than four secondary references. --] (]) 16:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::: Come on! Stop lying. You didn't delete the reference? ] (]) 16:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC) .
	:::: No sir, the reference has not been deleted, only the content is paraphrased, please check the diff you have provided. --] (]) 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::::: That URL was inserted wrong by me. Anyway, you deleted it. and then restored it back. Was it a test? ] (]) 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:::::: Yes sir, I have mentioned in the edit summary ''I will add your recent addition with due weight.'' and hence I had added back your content with your reference with paraphrasing. I had to undo because you had reverted large chunks and it was simpler to undo and then re-insert your latest addition. You see I did not purge your reference or content here also. --] (]) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::::::: Stop addressing me as "sir" and pretending to be like a victim. I don't like someone calling me as "sir". Regarding the edit which you claim that he was not a Dalit has been disproved by many sources. His original caste certificate says that. . So stop confusing others. ] (]) 16:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::: Okay Terabar, there is no intent to offend. I am not playing victim. What you say is contradicted in sources, we go by what is reported in secondary sources. --] (]) 16:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::: I added a reference where Police said that Rohith can claim to be of And then you added your Even when the police had already verified. This proves that you changed the meaning of content to suit your own POV. ] (]) 17:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Your content and reference remain. Multiple newer source say it is under investigation. You keep deleting them. Just hear what I am saying! --] (]) 17:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::::::::::: My content remains? What? ] (]) 18:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::'''Comment:''' It appears that Terabar has reverted 22 times in the last eleven days at ]. Somebody whose edits were supported by consensus would not have to keep restoring his changes over and over when others remove them. In my opinion a three-day block of ] would be appropriate. . The pattern suggests he may have trouble editing neutrally wherever ] are involved. POV editing on Indian issues also raises concerns under ]. ] (]) 03:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|S.C. Braga}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|SLBedit}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	<!-- 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 user talk page:

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	After the user first edition, I reverted, leaving a link in the summary explaining the reason. The user imediately reverted the edition. I left a warning in his talk page and he imediately reverted the revision in the article and in his talk page . Looks its only interested only in a edit war.] (]) 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\| Valencian Community}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|81.38.123.50}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	Have not edited page nor aware of what the correct content should be.

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

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	{{pagelinks\|Basque Country (autonomous community) }} as well

	] (]) 23:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	:The problem is that several users use Misplaced Pages to make real something that exists only in his imagination. I respect the ideas of everyone, including the separatists, but this encyclopedia can not allow maps of regions of Spain are added as if they were independent countries or nations. That is intolerable.--] (]) 23:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
	::{{rpa}} Can't you see there are several consensuses to use this type of map for the ], these maps don't indicate these polities are independent countries. I suggest someone to block you because you're being disruptive ] (]) 01:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\| Veganism}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mr. Magoo and McBarker}}

	The following show wholesale reverts; complex, partial reverts; or just inappropriate edits.

	*Edit: : changed a sentence that is the subject of an RfC by adding "exploitative kind of"
	:*'''1st revert''': : restored "exploitative kind of"
	*Edit: : added four low-quality/primary sources that undermined the RfC sentence
	*Edit: (combined diff): removed academic sources that support the RfC sentence
	*Edit: , added "especially ones gained from harming the animal"
	:*'''2nd revert''': , restored "especially ones gained from harming the animal"
	:*'''3rd revert''': , restored "especially ones gained from harming the animal"
	*Edit: , changed "animals" to "animal products"
	:*'''4th revert''': , restored the change from "animals" to "animal products"
	*Edit: (combined diff), added citation templates to well-formed manual references
	:*'''5th revert''': , restored the citation templates; restored the change from "animals" to "animal products"
	:*'''6th revert''': , restored the change from "animals" to "animal products"

	;Comment
	Mr. Magoo and McBarker arrived at ] on 30 January to respond to an RfC. He is making inappropriate edits; complex, partial reverts; and is making discussion difficult, with over 100 edits to talk between 30 January and 1 February.

	He is posting extreme claims about veganism on talk; accusing academic sources of being radical vegans/veganarchists, including several who seem not to be vegans at all; inserting poor sources, including websites of unknown provenance; adding citation templates to well-formed refs against CITEVAR; changing the sentence that's the subject of the RfC; and removing academic sources.

	He caused similar problems in October at ], which triggered several warnings and a block for edit warring. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

	'''Mr. Magoo's response'''

	Firstly, this is a witch hunt from a sysop and the sysop's few, uh, "abolitionist vegan" tag team editors who disagree with me pointing out that there are no sources for veganism being about commodity status of animals. The sysop pretty much dominates the veganism article. 3 others will most likely appear here to attack me as well. <s>I'll inform other arguers that they can give their opinion of me because they will not appear otherwise as no one but people who want me gone from disagreeing with them even care.</s> <small>(Maybe unnecessary if it's just us two.)</small>

	Another disagreer, ] is also being witch-hunted by the group: .

	The first two edits are completely pointless as I just entered the article without having edited there before and reverted with the explanation of "As it stands, without exploitative it is about veganarchism and not general veganism. You haven't explained anything on talk." Indeed I had explained my position for undoing on talk but the other person hadn't for their undo. In this context my first two edits are completely understandable.

	The "low quality" sources are from mainstream veganist organizations. Just look at them for heaven's sake. The sysop immediately reverted me because non-academic sources. Sysop also did not explain on talk when I questioned. Academic is not a must on Misplaced Pages.

	The removal of the "academic sources" was well explained on talk. If you notice, there are sources for "commodity status of animals" without any relation to veganism. '''The sysop is actually pushing sources like this. This is corruption.''' In addition, I pointed out that many of the other sources also had no relation. I did not remove the core 3 sources of theirs which are pretty much the only ones they even care to point out on talk because the rest are useless.

	The first revert of "especially ones gained from harming the animal" is as you can see not part of an edit war but was restored because it was lost in an edit mess like stated in the description. Only the second is an actual revert which was reverted by the other again, after which I stopped because I did not want to edit war.

	The first animal product edit was simply part of the "especially ones gained from harming the animal". Most of the edits of it are just part of the ""especially ones gained from harming the animal". And when I restore it in the second edit of it, I'm not edit warring because that was when "especially ones gained from harming the animal", the fought over edit was removed along with "animal products" which wasn't fought over. I restored "animal products" because they weren't denying it and there was no war over it.

	The last times are again part of the citation template disagreement. '''At no point were me and Viriditas actually disagreeing''' over animal products on either the article's talk or on my talk. I don't know why it kept disappearing.

	The sysop has tried to incriminate me here, pushing for it hard. Many of these edits like I mentioned weren't part of a war but an edit mess. I always stop the revert-escalation quickly because I have learned my lesson from past at Political Correctness. In fact I have argued hard at Political Correctness ever since October but I have not edit warred whatsoever because again, I learned my lesson. --] (]) 02:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

	:I'd also want to point out that the sysop to stay away from the lead sentence and its sources. Ever after the warning I did not edit the lead sentence or its sources whatsoever. So the sysop's warning worked and now the sysop is still blaming me for those edits. --] (]) 02:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

	:I'd also like to point out that on my talk there has been a lengthy discussion about the citation templates featured in the bottom half of the edits. At no point was animal products brought up. --] (]) 02:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

	:I'd also like to mention that the sysop had written that certain kinds of pet "ownership" were vegan, like that of rescuing animals over purchasing them. The "animal products" line in question used to say before that "vegans oppose the use of animals for any purpose." I believed there was admin-backed concensus behind "animal products" over that line since the sysop had not reverted even though the sysop usually does, meaning that removal of it was closer to vandalism, but I guess not. I mean the infobox itself states "animal products". There is an article for ] if you add hyperlinks. In fact my addition of animal products hasn't been reverted? How is this a disruptive edit if no one cares to revert even though they usually revert unwanted stuff instantly? --] (]) 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

	:Also, I swear to never edit the ] article again if I'm let off with a warning. I believe I can prove my point on the talk page. No bad talk page behavior was pointed out as you can see. --] (]) 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

	::During about your editing at ], {{u\|Fyddlestix}} wrote that you had made 981 edits to talk between 30 September and 14 November 2015, and were "]" the discussion:

	::<blockquote>He has edit warred, repeatedly refused to assume good faith, and refused to listen - and his conduct in this dispute has made the article measurably worse - the article lede, for example, is a mess of WP:OVERCITE now, because Magoo has taken an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to sourcing his arguments, while writing off high-quality sources that don't support his view (often simply because the author happens to be a liberal or "left-wing" in Msgoo's opinion).</blockquote>

	::This is a mirror image of what's happening at ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:39, 16 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Baldoz reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""
20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""
20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Fixed discrepancies made by user Lobo151"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: Page protected for three months)

User being reported: 2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

00:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269446497 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) to 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268811016 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
2. 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pudukkottai."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See link to my request to have the page protected Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/01#c-Dawnseeker2000-20250108183700-Pudukkottai and that request's denial Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/01#c-Daniel_Quinlan-20250108191600-Dawnseeker2000-20250108183700

Page protected for a period of three months This has been going on regularly since the last protection expired, and got really fierce lately. Since the article comes under ARBIPA, I will leave a CTOPS notice on talk.

User:Boackandwhite reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked 24h)

Previous version reverted to: Boackandwhite's initial bold edit; my revert to last stable version.

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:
Boackandwhite, a new account with fewer than 100 edits, has already racked up an impressive record of disruption, even if this is more due to lack of competence than bad faith. Boackandwhite's talk page is filled with warnings about adding unsourced or unverifiable content, removing speedy deletion tags out of process for a page created by Boackandwhite himself, uploading an image with no source or license information, and making edits that contravene Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style.

At Afghan mujahideen, Boackandwhite reinstated unsourced material after it was challenged (primarily by myself, but also by other page-watchers) five separate times in less than a month, eventually merging a source that plainly fails verification to validate the proposed change (and that's excluding multiple IP edits that cannot be conclusively linked to Boackandwhite). In a talk page thread initiated by Boackandwhite, I attempted to explain why his edit had been contested: "Since your source does not directly state that NATO is an ally of the mujahideen, your edit failed verification and has been reverted. If you disagree, then please provide a page number and quote of the relevant excerpt that verifies the claim." However, Boackandwhite stopped replying and instead resumed edit warring, apparently convinced that since the U.S., the most powerful member of the NATO alliance, clearly supported the Afghan mujahideen, that must also mean that NATO as a whole can be considered allied to the mujahideen—no sourcing or verification necessary.

Even though this can be considered a low-intensity edit war, Boackandwhite's seeming inability to understand Misplaced Pages's sourcing/content policies and insistence on reverting to restore the perceived "truth" to our article, coupled with a break in communication from this user, has reached a point where some kind of administrative action may be warranted. Thank you for your consideration.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

no. i added NATO for his support to gulf war coalition (that included mujaheddin) with operation anchor guardian. Boackandwhite (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours As noted, more about competence than anything else.

User:94.187.8.87 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:94.187.8.87

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine WP:BLP concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of three days by Randykitty Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:46.217.186.173 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Page protected)

User being reported: 46.217.186.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269596382 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269506258 by MacaroniPizzaHotDog (talk)"
01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269482182 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269469326 by JacktheBrown (talk)"
21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269452155 by Fneskljvnl (talk) FASISM TOWARDS MACEDONIA"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Persistent edit warring. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Asafviki reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also LOUT socking with this edit. --Seawolf35 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:TG-article reported by User:Danners430 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: TG-article (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"
19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Boeing 737 MAX."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also edit warring at Batik Air, Boeing 737 MAX, Singapore Airlines Flight 321 and Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268. User has been told to discuss edits on talk pages on multiple occasions, and seemingly refuses to do so. Danners430 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430 This is not a 3RR violation. I see two reverts. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No it’s not a 3RR violation - but it’s a user that’s consistently edit warring across multiple pages and refusing to engage in talk pages, which is why I believe it still belongs on the edit warring noticeboard.

Edit: I’ll get the rest of the diffs here in a sec… I used Twinkle for the original report. Danners430 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 321 - reversion 1, reversion 2 (which was following a pertial reinstatement of their already reverted content)
Batik Air - partial reinstatement of reverted content, followed by reinstating his reverted edit
Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268 - reinstating their previously reverted content
SmartLynx Airlines Estonia - reinstates their reverted edit, then again partially reinstating their reverted edit.
Boeing 737 MAX - legitimately and in good faith alters a template, but then after being reverted doubles down and reinstates the edit.

The user has previously been blocked for this exact same behaviour by User:Canterbury_Tail, and is nt responding to talk page messages. Danners430 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:190.201.157.28 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: )

User being reported: 190.201.157.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""
23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""
20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wolf Man (2025 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page here

Comments:

User:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: )

User being reported: 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) ""
01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) ""
00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269714333 by MikeAllen (talk) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269684805 by MikeAllen (talk) Enough with the vandalism already"
2. 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269684573 by MikeAllen (talk) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Until Dawn (film)."
00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Until Dawn (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "/* We edit by consensus */ new section"

Comments: I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...

Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: diff on 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC).

The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: diff

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: