Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:09, 22 March 2016 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,225 edits →User:Viggen reported by User:Ушкуйник (Result: Both warned): Closing. Comment on WP:ARBEE← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:05, 8 January 2025 edit undoDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators224,905 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): oops 
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 = 310 |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&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Chance997}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Tao (entertainer)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ycplaer}}


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


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&oldid=710132874 '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Tao has just been confirmed for a new movie, I added the information regarding the movie in the page.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
#1 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710330960&oldid=710132874


Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
But YC deleted it because the director directed more than 30 TV shows.
Which I understand but I only mentioned new Shanghai Bund because because it's the only thing pertinent to the movie being announced since it's the inspiration The game changer, The game changer is an adapation of the Bund/New Shanghai Bund. And the Gao Xixi directed New Shanghai bund. This editor also deleted all references pertaining to New Shanghai Bund and The bund which are related to this project. I find YCplaer's reason for deleting my edit uncalled for and confusing.


I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
#2 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710331219&oldid=710331042
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
This editor also said I used Twitter as a source but I didn't the original chinese source from Sina ent news was also added by me, the twitter reference is only an english translation of the Chinese original news source for the movie.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
I put back my references modified my edit to make it shorter and more concise. I added more sources from english film news site, I explained the reasons for my edits


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ToadGuy101}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710355695&oldid=710331511
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710444100&oldid=710376105


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
but YCplaer deleted all and added trivial fan information instead,without explanation.
#3https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710545945&oldid=710489277


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
I reverted my edit again and asked for a talk in the talk page so we could resolve our differences ,and also added back YCplaer's edit which I had deleted when I reverted my edit to show good faith
# {{diff2|1267771905|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710547553&oldid=710545945
# {{diff2|1267757010|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710550339&oldid=710550221
# {{diff2|1267751151|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267747621|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
In the meanwhile an Admin Drmies made a lot of revisions on the page, I understand why, they were added by others and I didn't know they didn't belong on the page or not properly sourced. now I'm working on finding proper sources for the things that I think are still valid, the first edit I started with following the purge was Tao's first solo concert.
# {{diff2|1267751597|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710556081&oldid=710555486
# {{diff2|1267301347|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
However YCplaer reverted this edit too and all of Drmies revisions. YCplaer disregarded my request to talk and Drmies comments regarding why the some things were deleted and don't belong on the page including, Ycplaer's previous edit.


User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
#4 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710568561&oldid=710556081
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
<!-- 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 -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1000mods}} <br />
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mindxeraser}}
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ycplaer&oldid=710606549


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Tao_%28entertainer%29&diff=710573151&oldid=710573081


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
#
I want to continue improving the page but I can't proceed due to YCplaer's actions. I think YCplaer is edit warring and being disruptive.
#
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
#
] (]) 00:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
#
*Ycplaer just reverted again, reinstating 12k worth of YouTube links. ] (]) 15:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
::'''Result:''' Warned. Yclplaer may be blocked if they continue to make large changes at ] while failing to engage in any discussions. ] (]) 03:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: One user blocked) ==


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Conor McGregor}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Frankie edgar 32}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Platonic Love}}


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
So bad that the last 50 edits on this page contain 1 edit that is not part of this edit war. across the controversial edit, I reverted it added sources. I opened a discussion on the talkpage, to which neither party has added anything. ] (]) 21:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
:The reason I was constantly reverting Frankie edgar 32 is because he's a single purpose account vandalizing the page. The only purpose to the creation of his account is to add incorrect info on that article. If he was sincere, he would also edit the MMA record in José Aldo's article and the UFC 194 article as well. But ever since his account creation, all he's done is vandalize Conor McGregor's page with his inaccurate insincere bias. He's been reverted by many editors such as Murry1975, Stephenmusic, Alexander Gustafsson and myself multiple times but still persists in his single-purpose account vandalism. That's the reason I ignored the 3RR but since this has finally been reported, '''I will cease to make any reverts''' or edits engaging him on the page while an admin looks into this and hopefully permanently bans Frankie edgar 32. For the record, I also was unaware that Murry1975 had began a discussion on the talkpage as I was focused on preventing Frankie edgar 32's vandalism. I apologize for that. ] (]) 21:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
::I would have expected you to find the article talk page, before making 31 reverts(by my count). --] (]) 22:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I honestly didn't think anyone started a discussion. And thanks for counting, I was trying to prevent Frankie edgar 32's vandalism. I just perused the talkpage right now and noticed that numerous editors agree with me that he's distorting the article such as Marz8ar, NerdNinja9 and InedibleHulk. I definitely should have checked the talkpage, but I thought Frankie edgar 32's single purpose account was such a clear case of vandalism that I simply opted to revert and hoped he'd get the picture without going through the necessary steps of reporting him and initiating that. But obviously, he won't get the picture unless he's permanently blocked for being a single-purpose vandalising account. ] (]) 22:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
::::FE32 adds a source, but has just after being reported, as Kansas Bear puts it, found the talkpage. ] (]) 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::This just proves how insincere Frankie edgar 32 (FE32) really is. This so-called source is a smoke-screen excuse to justify his vandalism of Conor McGregor's page. If he had an atom's worth of sincerity, he'd also "correct" José Aldo's page and UFC 194 article, yet the only article he's ever edited since creating his account is Conor McGregor. Several editors have responded to him at length explaining why his source is insufficient yet he's ignored them and continues to vandalise the page. The reason I know this is because I checked his talkpage and elsewhere to see whether anyone has discussed this with him, because if no one did, I would have initiated a discussion with him myself and made the same explanation to him. However after investigating and confirming that numerous editors already discussed and explained to him and asked him to stop, he simply refuses, that coupled with the fact he's a clear single-purpose account, led me to conclude he's simply a troll not worthy of initiating a discussion with beyond what others have already attempted and I didn't consider checking the talkpage of the article in question as I was satisfied and convinced after seeing his talkpage and the editor's talkpages who reverted him that he was absolutely a vandal and decided to constantly revert hoping he'd go away. Next time though, it'd be worthwhile to do what Murry1975 did and just report such cases and have an admin swiftly deal with it. ] (]) 22:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::Don't worry, I corrected Aldo's page now too. I hope that clears up the inconsistencies and resolved any issues you have. ] (]) 23:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
'''Note''': Frankie edgar 32 just reverted the article in question again. As I mentioned earlier, '''I have committed not to make any further reverts''' as this has now been reported despite my sincere view that this is blatant and clear vandalism and I anticipate will be soon be resolved with FE32 being indefinitely blocked. Again, the reason I felt justified constantly reverting him earlier was due to him being a clear case of a single-purpose account with malicious intent who refused to heed any warnings/reverts/genuine discussions initiated by multiple editors which I checked beforehand. Further evidence can clearly be seen by his troll-laced response above. However, I recognize it probably would have been better to report him earlier myself then to simply revert and hope he'd disappear. That definitely seems the better remedy and strategy I intend to employ when dealing with similar future cases. ] (]) 23:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
:I do not mean to upset you, my friend. I am admittedly new to Misplaced Pages and only am trying to represent the truth! I apologize if my intention was misconstrued. I do not want to see your account compromised. I hope this misunderstanding can be cleared up swiftly and justly for all parties involved. ] (]) 00:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::Nearly TEN different editors disagree with your version of the "truth" and have posted warnings on your talkpage, reverted you over a period of months and attempted to engage in genuine discussion with you all of which you've ignored as a single-purpose account with malicious intent to vandalize Conor McGregor's page without a single edit elsewhere beyond the one you claim to be true. You haven't upset me, please drop the act ''my friend'' and avoid creating another account once this one is indefinitely blocked. ] (]) 00:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
:::My friend, a million people could disagree with me but the only opinion that matters is that of the NSAC. I apologize for saying I upset you when that is not the case. I should have said "I did not mean to come off as attempting to upset you". I don't think either of us should need a new account after all is said and done. I hope in time we can mend this rocky start to a (hopefully) long lasting friendship. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::The NSAC could have reported the win as being via "submission" which doesn't make it true and doesn't conform to reality which is basically what ten different editors have tried explaining to you. The only opinion that matters is '''''reality''''' and the NSAC is not infallible and have made mistakes before requiring correction which editors have also explained to you. If a scientific body/authority incorrectly wrote a typo saying the colour of the sun is purple and you attempted to edit an article concerning the sun saying the sun is purple and the only opinion that matters is that of the scientific authority who made the erroneous claim, do you think your "source" or reasoning would fly? That's exactly and essentially what you've been attempting to do here over a period of months after having it explained to you over and over. The only opinion that matters is fact, whether you like it or not ''buddy''. ] (]) 01:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::::- Also, I'm not worried about the status of my account which has existed without incident since 2006 as I've pledged not to make any more reverts and maintained that pledge in addition to affirming my intent to deal in the future with similar problematic editors such as yourself by reporting them promptly. The same however can't be said for you as a single-purpose account who for months haven't heeded anyone's advice and even had the audacity to make further reverts after being reported, doubling-down on your inexcusable behaviour. ] (]) 01:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::I think a more accurate comparison in this case would be if you were disappointed with a judges decision and brought it upon yourself to change a fighter record to how you personally scored the fight. I don't know what makes you think you have any authority to overrule the atheltic commission. My friend, I'm sorry, but you do not have the authority. ] (]) 07:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::It appears your capacity for thinking is severely compromised my friend as at no time did I insinuate any of the utter non-sense you just mentioned. This reminds me of various well-known quotes about reasoning or debating with an ignorant person. Attempting to alter reality to conform to your false desires is never a successful endeavour and thinking you have such authority is simply a delusion. Either abort your futile endeavour or seek help for your illness. ] (]) 20:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' ] is blocked 24 hours for at this noticeboard: "seek help for your illness." ] (]) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
{{AN3|b|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Chrysler}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|HughD}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fernanda Torres}}
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#
#


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# - "Just because it is in The New York Times, does not make it newsworthy for an encyclopedia article"
# - "do not keep adding material under discussion into the article until the issue of your contributions is fully resolved here


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1267808569|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
# {{diff2|1267807858|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
# {{diff2|1267807213|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
# {{diff2|1267806982|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
# {{diff2|1267806103|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Note: this contributor claims that "repairing vandalism is exempt from 3rr." ] (]) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267807698|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
# {{diff2|1267808131|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*I agree this is a clear case of edit warring. HughD has been involved in two cases of 3RR since March 2nd relating to the ] article. , . The Pinto article was locked due to HughD's edit warring. This is part of a pattern of problematic behavior that has resulted in both HughD's previous blocks as well as his current topic ban. {{U|Greglocock}} expressed frustration that locking the Pinto article would not solve the issue, "Nice try, but in 24 hours recently (1000 13 march-1000 14 march) HughD made 28 edits in article space and 29 in talk space, on this article about a 40 year old car. I see no sign that he is even attempting to modify his behavior"]. It certainly appears that he was correct. I would ask for an automotive article topic ban. ] (]) 01:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


*HughD's edit warring has continued. Despite an active discussion regarding the validity of the material HughD wishes to add to the article the editor has continued adding the material to the article rather than engaging in talk page discussions . The editor has also added the material to the article lead . I think any reasonable editor would see that material who's notability in the body of an article is questioned by several editors certainly does not belong in the lead.
:In a related ANI admin {{U|Ricky81682}} also noted HughD's recent disruptive editing. ] (]) 17:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Would an admin please review this case.''' HughD revenge tagged the Chrysler article. A talk page consensus did not support the claim of NPOV so the tag was removed. HughD quickly restored the tag even though he is the only editor who claims there is a NPOV issue with the article. HughD is continuing his edit warring on both the Chrysler page and the Ford Pinto article.
{{AN3|b|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
=== Section blanking of "Recalls" subsection at article ] ===


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
During article improvement, the section was vandalized repeatedly by persistent section blanking, resulting in edit conflicts. Summary:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Csknp}}
* {{diff2|633770536|13 November 2014}} A humble yet serviceable first draft of a "Recalls" subsection was added by {{u|STJMLCC}} and a few days later adequately if not artfully sourced by collaborator {{u|Thundermaker}}.
* {{diff2|709970100|14 March 2016}} '''First section blanking''' {{u|Springee}}; undiscussed.
* {{diff2|710702773|10:13, 18 March 2016}} Improve sourcing. Added multiple, well-formatted, additional mainstream media reliable source references.
* {{diff2|710703132|10:15, 18 March 2016}} '''Second section blanking''' {{u|Springee}}, 2 minutes later; again undiscussed. References deleted included '']'', '']'', and '']''; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed.
* {{diff2|710704762|10:27, 18 March 2016}} Undo section blanking. 1RR.
* {{diff2|710705235|10:31, 18 March 2016}} '''Third section blanking''' {{u|Springee}}, 4 minutes later; again undiscussed. Again references deleted included '']'', '']'', and '']''; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed; section blanking while colleague is actively editing results in an edit conflict
* {{diff2|710706155|10:37, 18 March 2016}} ''After'' section blanking 3 times in 4 days, {{u|Springee}} posts at article talk claiming content is "non-notable"
* {{diff2|710706352|10:39, 18 March 2016}} Further improve sourcing; add well-formatted citation to the '']''
* {{diff2|710746008|15:32, 18 March 2016}} Having section blanked 3 times in 4 days, and having ] at ], {{u|Springee}} solicits the complainant {{u|CZmarlin}} to continue at ]: "If you would like to remove the brake booster per talk page consensus I would appreciate it (I've removed it twice today which is once too many)"
* '''Fourth section blanking''' complainant {{u|CZmarlin}}; References deleted included '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', and the '']''; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed; section blanking while colleague is actively editing results in an edit conflict
* {{diff2|710760199|17:08, 18 March 2016}} '''Fifth section blanking''' complainant {{u|CZmarlin}}; References deleted included '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', the '']'', and '']'' magazine; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed; section blanking included an <code><nowiki>{{in use|section}}</nowiki></code> section hat template; section blanking while colleague is actively editing results in an another edit conflict
* '''Sixth and seventh section blankings''' {{u|Springee}}; section blanking includes the "Recall" and "Reception" sections; 4th and 5th section blankings in 5 days by {{u|Springee}}; Noteworthy reliable source references deleted included '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', and the '']'', ], the ], the '']'', ], ], and ]; no alternative summarization of noteworthy reliable sources proposed.


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Respectfully request consideration of this tendentious tag team section blanking behavior. Thank you. ] (]) 19:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
All of my edits were good faith improvements to the article; all my edits involved collaborative improvements, including broadened sourcing to address expressed concerns of noteworthiness (except for the second section blanking, when collaborative improvement was immediately precluded by the rapidity of the third section blanking).
# {{diff2|1267452946|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|1267525585|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# restore section after second section blanking; third section blanking came so quickly incremental improvement was not possible;
# {{diff2|1267644988|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
# add references to '']'', '']'', and '']'' to address expressed concerns regarding noteworthiness
# {{diff2|1267646582|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"
# edit conflict; add references to '']'', the '']'', the '']'', '']'', ], the '']'' to address concerns of noteworthiness
# edit conflict; add relevant excerpt from noteworthy source


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Thank you. ] (]) 14:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
# {{diff|oldid=1267699885|diff=1267736737|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:Rather than your usual shotgun posts you need to explain why each of the edits CZMarlin diffed were acceptable. Random examples where you may have been right are not the issue. Not that i'm saying you were right. ] (])
This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} (by {{u|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
:HughD's claims of section blanking are just more edit warring. Most of the above revolves around which automotive recalls are significant enough for inclusion on the main article of a car company. I think we all agree that something like the Toyota unintended acceleration recall is notable but a recall to fix something relatively minor, even if it affects many cars, is not. This was discussed on the automotive project page with strong consensus that only the most significant recalls would be included. HughD, likely as a form of edit warring with me, followed me to this page and reverted an edit of mine (his first "blanking" claim). My edit on the 14th was removing a '''2 sentence paragraph''' discussing an recall that was not significant enough for inclusion. Since the '''two sentences''' were the contents of the entire section I removed the section as well. When the Pinto page was locked HughD looked at another one of my recent edits and decided to revert it. Adding more sources that reported it doesn't make it notable given the article covers a nearly 100 year old company. Per typical HughD pattern (see his block long) discussion and consensus building were bypassed in favor of rapid fire edits. I did not specifically solicit CZmarlin. HughD questioned my reading of the Recall Notability talk page discussion (linked above). I pinged all the involved editors for their opinions. CZmarlin was one of those editors. Two of the involved editors have replied thus far. If HughD feels he is in the right and the material should be included then use non-edit warring means. Certainly ignoring the concerns of now three editors and continuing to add questionable material is not the correct solution. ] (]) 01:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
::] is disingenuous in describing the issue with the edits in question. The major problem is that the material HughD is contributing to the Chrysler article consists of a collection of referenced material that violates the ] guideline. As other editors have discussed on the Chrysler talk page, these recalls are not notable for inclusion in an article outlining the history, operations, and products of this almost 100 year-old firm. In short, there is ] emphasis for these recalls by Chrysler, and the entire "recall" as well as "reception" sections are presented in a way that violates ] guidelines. Moreover, there is no basis of HughD claiming that other contributors had violated the 3RR rule, with the exception of HughD's own reverts on March 18. It is also noteworthy that HughD has redacted the numerous notices regarding their disruptive editing from the talk page () on March 19. Thank you ] (]) 16:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Second the above. It's telling that HughD doesn't have supporters on the various automotive pages he has edited recently. ] (]) 18:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
==Multiple users reported by ] (Result: Malformed)==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Star Wars: The Force Awakens}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' Multiple users


'''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|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


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


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


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


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


<u>Comments:</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Someone inserted a table of information into the Accolades section. Some editors want it removed, some want to retain it. An invitation to discuss on the Talk page resulted in some argument and the edit war is continuing regardless. I myself am not involved in the edit war, but attempted to encourage discussion. A bit of a ] really, but it would be nice if someone could put a stop to it. Thanks.


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
] (]) 20:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Malformed. Not in the usual form for an edit warring report, and you have not notified anyone that you made a report. Consider refiling if you think one or more specific people ought to be sanctioned. You could help by improving the talk page discussion. For instance, you could post a summary of the views at ]. It is hard for an outsider to tell who is favoring what option, and thus if there is any consensus. You could also open a formal ] which will bring in more opinions. ] (]) 04:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
*It is also hard for an insider to tell who is favouring what opinion too - which makes it difficult to single out any user as an antagonist and report them. I don't know what you mean by malformed - I filled in all the required links, so what is the usual form for an edit warring report? As for alerting users, ] quite clearly states "A warning is not required" - has the policy now changed? ] (]) 08:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
::Policy remains the same. You have misinterpreted it. It says in big red letters at the top of this page that you must inform those you are reporting to this board. The not required phrase you note above refers to warnings placed on the alleged edit warrer's talk pages. -] ] 09:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I don't quite get this. The bit in big red letters at the top - does that mean I must place a warning on the article talk page? But I am not required to post a warning on the users' talk pages? I've not used this system before and it's a bit confusing. Thanks.] (]) 11:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
::::An edit warring report has to be about one or more specific people who you consider to be edit warring. Then you notify them and give them a chance to respond. ] (]) 16:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Rebecca Jane Brown (vlogger)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|AnonymousUsernamexoxo}}


'''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. -->
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


Previous version reverted to: '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I freely admit, this is such an obviously bad inclusion on the page that I broke 3rr before attempting to engage in discussion. This account has only ever made edits to add this one link to this page. It seems pretty clearly disruptive editing on a BLP. Wasn't sure where best to take it. ] (]) 20:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' No action. This brand new user broke ] but may be trying to cooperate now, per what they wrote on the article Talk. Let us know If the problem continues. ] (]) 16:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC) ::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Both warned) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|University of California, Irvine School of Law}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Lawstudent2016}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
<!-- 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|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|1268002110|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
# ]
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# ]
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
# ]
# ]


'''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|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]


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


<u>Comments:</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
James Allison, you are engaged in edit warring as well. This is a consequence of you repeatedly deleting updated information I incorporate in the UCI Law school page.


As I mentioned on the talk page, the information is outdated. People use Misplaced Pages to learn more about a certain school, how are they supposed to lean more if you have info from 2011? The rankings, employment information, faculty/student count, etc are all old. Also isn't the whole point of being able to edit wikipedia pages to improve them? I haven't deleted anything. I have just added new information.

The edits are as follow:
UCI Law does not have 200-something students and 20-something faculty. This info is from 2011. The current number stands at 338 and 81, respectively.
Sisk's faculty rankings have been updated in September 2015. The page needs to reflect that.
The newest US News rankings have been released. UCI moved up 2 places, this needs to be stated in the page. It has also been ranked in other areas, again, this needs to be stated.
UCI's placement in federal clerkships has been updated too. The data was released last year.
Employment data is again, unsurprisingly, outdated. It reflects 2013 info, when the 2014 info has long been released.

If you see something that is not accurate, like a citation issue, please let me know and I'll fix it. But, please don't delete the entire updated sections. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:<small>You don't need to reply by adding a section. Just click edit section. <span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 7px maroon">-- ] <sup><span style="font-size:80%">]</span></sup></span> 21:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)</small>
:I am happy to collaboratively discuss improvements to the article. However, as I stated on the talk page, once another user has objected to your edits by reverting them, the appropriate course of action is to ], not engage in edit warring and ]. Given your repeated insistence on restoring the article to your favored version, even while engaging in discussion, I am not sure you understand that. Regards, ](<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 22:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' ] and ] are both warned. Though ] seems impatient to make his updates at all costs, no good rationale has been provided on Talk as to what is wrong with his changes. If we just count reverts, there would be a case for blocking both parties. Please try to have a better quality of discussion before asking for a block. ] (]) 04:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Partition of Syria}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Opdire657}}

Diffs of the user's reverts:
#
#
#

The user's first edit included a ]. All references used in the article obviously treat the article subject. The user's category is faulty as the war is ongoing and the ''idea'' (or scenario) of partition is clearly not a factual consequence. I then , , and then he he had earlier tagged (?) and removed an important referenced fact ({{small|"which was dismissed by the Syrian government"}}). I then to external links (instead of having the other already existing references added to that same sentence, again, WP:BLUE), and returned the removed fact, and explained: "No. Unecessary is tagging a sentence and removing another. The war is ongoing, and the partition is not a factual consequence." He , , , and was then . The user has some recent edit warring going on, as made clear by the Admin warnings seen at his talk page.--] 23:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


*'''Comment''': The user ]. I will answer to his report here, as to avoid branching. {{ping|Opdire657}} There is a difference between improvements and adding templates questioning claims. You never explained how the lead sentence is questionable. You falsely accused me of "removing sources", which is not an attempt to resolve a dispute. I don't see how the loss of title and year of a citation (a result of reverting) have anything to do with the problem, which is edit warring. You did indeed remove a sentence. ''de jure'' partition, which is the article subject, does not exist. The idea or scenario of partition (again, article subject) cannot be a factual consequence. I moved the source added by you, which treats exactly the same as the other five sources present (added by me earlier), to the external links, as to avoid ref-bombing the first (lead) sentence (]).--] 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' Both warned. You've both violated the ] restriction on an article related to the Syrian Civil War, and both parties could be blocked. To avoid any future misunderstandings, I'm adding {{tl|Syrian Civil War sanctions}} to the talk page. ] (]) 05:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Partition of Syria}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Zoupan}}

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This article touch a case that emerged recently in the midst of the civil war taking place in Syria and is part of the consequences of the war not part of the war itself. The user reverted my edits with an edit summary "have you read any of the references?". In his first revert, he removed the title and the date of a source I had filled in. Secondly, he added to he last sentence "which was dismissed by the Syrian government" and readded the title of the source but not the date. Instead he replaced it with year without any explanation. Thirdly he used a edit summary as "No. Unecessary is tagging a sentence and removing another. The war is ongoing, and the partition is not a factual consequence", however I didn't delete any sentence and the partition exists in Syria since at least 2013. He also moved the first source to the external links section without any explanation. It is clear that this user have been engaged in many edit wars in the last period.--] (]) 00:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|Zoupan}} Many of your claims above is untrue, I improved the article with providing at least two new references. Maybe I did a fault with marking the first sentence with (citation needed) but you could have cooperated instead of reverting everything. I started a discussion to resolve the conflict, however you did not continue in the talk and filed a complaint against me. This was not good faith at all. The replacement of date and title with year is pointless. Where did I remove any sentence as you are falsely claiming?--] (]) 02:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*'''Result:''' Both warned for 1RR violation on an article under ] per an earlier report. ] (]) 05:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 36 hours) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Islam and Sikhism}} and {{pagelinks|Guru Arjan}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|SiddharthSunny}}

Over the past 24 hours, ] has broken 3RR on two different pages.

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

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
#
#

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#

] re-added content removed by ] on ] . They began reverting each others edits, and the same thing then started ]. ] attempted to resolve the issue on both talk pages . However, ] reverted her edits again, stating that she had been "proven wrong", despite a lack of consensus on the Talk page . When ] reverted the edits, he immediately re-reverted the edits, telling her to "stay within the rules" and "stop edit warring" . When it was once again reverted due to a 3RR violation , he said that ] "should be reported" and then subsequently reported her to ] . He then went on to claim that her edits to ] were unsourced , despite the fact that a source was clearly cited in the edit . When I reverted it because of this reason , he immediately changed it back , telling me to "try to read" it. — ] (] ]) 03:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

:* {{AN3|b|36 hours}} ] (]) 04:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Number of guns per capita by country}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Scott Illini}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:


;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|710944993|00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

User ScottIllini deleted a very well sourced statement for the third time despite my request to discuss it on the talk page. ] (]) 03:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Kashmir conflict}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|MBlaze Lightning}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff|oldid=710839850|diff=710840976|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC) to 09:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|710840258|09:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Reasons behind the dispute */ added back info and URL"
## {{diff2|710840976|09:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Indian administered Kashmir */correction."
# {{diff2|710836351|09:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}} "It's not about the Pakistan stance and page number! Junagadh ruler wanted an independent status, beside I'm unable to find your source in Google, provide an URL atleast"
# {{diff|oldid=710809191|diff=710829506|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC) to 08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|710828564|07:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* 1999 Conflict in Kargil */ sourced content added"
## {{diff2|710829267|08:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Indian administered Kashmir */Reverted edits by TalhaZubairButt. Case of source mispresentation. Where is the URL? And, Kashmir Media Service is no Human Right organisation. It has its roots in the neighbouring country"
## {{diff2|710829506|08:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}} "reverted edits by ] (]) Apparent case of source mispresentation. please provide URL and discuss on talk"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Editor has been reminded of 3PR, Discretionary Sanctions etc on his TP and still continues to engage in this long drawn out edit war. He is targeting multiple pages with his disruptive warring, this is the first of them. Other pages under attack include
# {{pagelinks|Indian Army}}
# {{pagelinks|Pakistan Army}}
# {{pagelinks|Indo-Pakistani War of 1965}}
] (]) 05:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I never violated 3RR. And ] should stop labelling other's contributions as disruption, while it's he itself who is reverting other users across multiple articles and simply labelling them disrupton and refusing to discuss at talk!
I never went beyond 2RR, let me show some evidence.
*]; In my first edit, i only added sourced content can be seen
; Because of the absence of URL in the refrence provided by the other user, it seem to me an apparent case of source mispresentation.
; Reason i provided in my edit summary.
I discussed the matter at talk page can be seen
While, in my next edit, i only added the info back per talk page discussion can be seen .

I request the administrator to please look out the Edit History of the pages (], ], ]) FreeatlastChitchat mentioned and their respective talk pages! I never violated 3RR nor went even close to it, I was involve in the discussion of talk pages of almost all of the articles FreeatlastChitchat mentioned.
Here on my talk page, ] accused me of violating 3RR (Can be seen ) on ] While i never went beyond 2RR and i think, he is pretty much confused b/w 2RR and 3RR.
While his own is filled with 3RR warning and he has been blocked by the administrator atleast 3 times to date for Edit Warring, Non-Civil behaviour while dealing with other editors and POV pushing across multiple articles.
Admins are requested to see the edit history of ] . FreeatlastChitchat refused to discuss at talk page while he blatantly reverted other editors twice continously + 1 non-revert edit. ] (]) 07:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
::@] you seem to be warring for like a week now. Your attempts to say that you did not violate 3PR should have been made if you were reported on day one. However you have been given a long, long length of rope and have hung yourself. ] (]) 12:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

* '''Suggest administrative action against nominator''': FreeatlastChitchat is probably one of the most disruptive editors I've ever seen. Checking his block log , talk page and a will show what I mean. Recently, he was to be guilty of violating ]. On several occasions he has shown zero tendency to participate in talk pages. In this case, I see that he's committed another edit war by reverting three times (, and ) with zero participation in the talk page. Admins please note that he had been warned many times by admins and other users and also note that he had been unblocked by ] provided that he keeps self adhere to ]. I think he have been given a long, long length of rope and have hung himself. ] (]) 18:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
::@] Don't fret my friends I will be online on wiki to remove your POV edits no matter how much you try to get me blocked. I think you have this text in a notepad file and just copy paste it everywhere right? Btw how did you arrive at this page if you are not following my edits? :P Just asking, not blaming you for following my edits of course, I think it is kinda flattering that you take time out to see my contributions list, ty for that. ] (]) 18:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I want you Online on wiki but when you are polite and constructive enough. How I arrived here is not important at all and don't twist the subject please. In fact, you are expected to explain why you think you had not edit warred. ] (]) 18:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''
For me also, {{U|FreeatlastChitchat}} is probably one of the most disruptive editor I've ever seen to date. He follow other users edit in order to demoralise them and repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. His apparent aim is just to create irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. He is following my edits since for many days, his behaviour is non-civil when dealing with other editors. For no reason, he repeatedly reverts my contributions just to get me involve in an edit war (I've always avoid an edit war) so that he can appeal here to get me block. I am a pending changes reviewer and thus i frequently patrol pages! FLCC follows my every edit and often reverts it. For example: , and . In the name of removing POV sentences, he blanks out sections of articles just to suit his own POV. Let me show few examples of ]. He follow my edits and not only revert me but also, he blanks entire sections , and yet again in the name of POV, he blanked out , full history can be seen and when he saw himself near 3RR, he simply removed most of the sources and relevant info just to suit his own point of view (can be seen ). He also, violated ] yesterday on ] can be seen () , and , he also refused to discuss on talk page and kept reverting other editors. From past many days, he is persistently blanking out contents and reverting other users across multiple articles and refusing to discuss on talk. For ex: a classic case of ]. Again, in the name of removing irrelevant and POV sentences, he blanked out most of the relevant info and sources, can be seen .
This user deserves a long period or an indefinite block from Misplaced Pages.
* '''Admins please note that''' He had been warned many times by different users/and admins. His is filled with such ] warnings and '''blocks.''' ] -] 19:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Pakistan Army}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|TalhaZubairButt}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|710924089|21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 710916278 by ] (])Come on Talk."
# {{diff2|710760720|22:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)}} "There seems 2 be more sourced info abt Pak army on other pages, hence I have collected here sourced info from other pages abt the military involvement in Bosnia, Palestine and Afghanistan. Info agreed upon in other articles on '71 war has also been added"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Long drawn out edit warring on multiple pages. Please see the report given above(that of Mblaze) for other targets. These two seem to be going at it like bulls in a china shop ] (]) 05:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I am simply trying to make good sourced edits and @MBlaze Lightning often changes it back to before because he disagrees, often he wants his own POV pushed.] (]) 03:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
:@] Mblaze is going to be blocked soon enough for his disruptions, but that does not mean we should start warring to prevent warring. Admins and others users (like me) routinely patrol these pages and keep an eye out for guys like him, so to be frank there is just no reason to start a war against these guys. They get their comeuppance in the end, no need to get involved in edit warring with them. ] (]) 04:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Okay, thanks. I felt as if I was being stalked. ] (]) 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} ]<sup>]</sup> 16:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Oath Keepers}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz}}

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|710959972|03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 710959074 by ] (]) Add more sources for wording in question, fix one word - "discredited" is more neutral than "scam.""
# {{diff2|710958002|02:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 710823375 by ] (]) It's a valid news source."
# {{diff2|710804565|03:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)}} "undo well meaning but inappropriate removal of sourced material to a ] source."

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
*Warned .

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|710606218|23:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* NPOV */ ?"
# {{diff2|710637523|03:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Scare quotes */ re"

;<u>Comments:</u>

After breaking 3RR on March 16/17, they are back at it again. No technical violation of 3RR this time, but pretty clear pattern of edit warring. ] (]) 05:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:'''FIRST:''' the claim of "breaking 3RR" is false. '''SECOND''', this appears to be just harassment tactics by VQuakr. ] (]) 14:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Notified''' . ] (]) 05:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: OP blocked one week) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List_of_children%27s_films#2000s}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks| FilmandTVFan28}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# #
# #
# #
# #
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
#
# he removed my warning for whatever reason

'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''<u>Comments:</u> <br />'''
Throughout the past week, I've made some simple edits to the page and been repeatedly shut down, edit-warred with, blocked, and ignored. This particular page has a set criteria of rules that the films on the list need to meet in order for them to be put on the children's film list (found at the top of the page,) and FilmandTVFan28 and user Betty Logan consistently violate them. They utilize a third party source, Allmovies, and consistently put the Harry Potter franchise on the list, which don't meet the criteria established by earlier users and administrators of the page, that all films must be G or PG rated and marketed exclusively to children. Harry Potter meets none of those. After being blocked for deleting them from the list (they've been rightfully deleted from the list by a previous user since last summer,) I was blocked. I tried to play by Betty's game when I was un-blocked, and utilized citations for my additions to the page and they've been repeatedly deleted, not to mention I've been mildly harassed over user talk pages, even when trying to negotiate peacefully ] (]) 05:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Dcasey98] (]) 05:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC).

*'''Note to admin''': Before taking action on this report please read mine first at ]. ] (]) 07:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

:{{ec}}{{ping|Dcasey98}} First off, read ]. And if multiple editors are reverting you, you are probably editing against consensus (''if all the traffic is heading toward you, you are probably in the wrong lane''). Also, blocks don't happen without a reason...
:Your reverts include , , , , and . FilmandTVFan28's reverts include , , and .
:He is not edit warring, you are. ] (]) 07:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

They were all recruited by Betty Logan, who loved unprofessional sources, to block me, for no other reason are they involved in this disputed. FilmandTVFan28 has edit warred 7 times in total.

The films don't belong on that list. READ THE CRITERIA! They're the only PG-13, YA-adapted films on there! It makes no sense, regardless of the sources they use! <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Those also are not revisions. They're editions, and no one but FilmandTVFan28 has been reverting them. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

* {{AN3|nb|1 week}} If he's "reverted" seven times, you've "reverted" somewhere between 20 to 30 times. You can't pretend that manually re-adding the same material is not a revert while simultaneously accusing every single edit by FilmandTVFan28 of being a revert. ] (]) 07:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of children's films}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Dcasey98}}

<!-- 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. -->
I am not sure if this is the correct place for this report since the disruption at the article goes far beyond edit-warring. I will go through the problem chronologically since it is porbbaly simpler to start at the beginning.

; Previous case
* Case 1: The problem originally started with Dcasey98 repeatedly removing sourced content from the article (namely the Harry Potter films) on the basis that he personally disagrees with the sources. The specifics are outlined at the article talk page. He was subsequently blocked from the article for edit-warring. It would be best if the admin who takes up this case acquaints themselves with the oirginal case at ].

* Sockpuppetry: This block was subsequently extended after he started edit-warring at the article using a sockpuppet ({{u|Bellatrix2017}}).

; This case
* Case 2: After his block expired he has resumed edit-warring and disrupting the article by making a sequence of ] edits, that are either unsourced, poorly sourced, or well sourced but not strictly corroborated by the source:

<!-- 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. -->
Subsequent reverts:
#
#
#
#
#

* Resumption of original edit-war. In addition to the POINTy edits, Dcasey has resumed the original edit-war by removing the Harry Potter films once again (note one of the sources which he doesn't regard as credible is an academic source by a professor who did his PhD on children's films):

<!-- 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 -->
*First discussion about "Harry Potter" on article talk page:
*Second discussion about pointy edits:

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
In addition to the edit-warring, there has been other disruptive behavior. Dcasey98 filed a false vandalism report against {{u|FilmandTVFan28}} (see ) and has indicated his intent to ignore Misplaced Pages policies with the comment "SOURCES DO NOT MATTER IF THE FILMS DO NOT REACH THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS" (see (). By my count, over the last four days he has reverted three editors (myself, FilmandTVFan28, {{u|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} and a cluebot) a total of fifteen times. ] (]) 07:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

* {{AN3|b|one week}}. Left a note instead of a template on his page explaining why in detail. I've also restored what appears to be the pre-disruption version and am watching the page. If he resumes edit warring after the block or tries sockpuppetry again and someone else doesn't get to him first, I will probably indef him. ] (]) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

::It looks ok now. Thanks for restoring a "good" version, I didn't really want to do it myself in case it was seen as perpetuating an edit-war. ] (]) 08:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Scratch that, indef block now for . ] (]) 08:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution) ==

;Page: {{pagelinks|Indo-Pakistani War of 1965}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|FreeatlastChitchat}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|711003933|11:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 710985013 by ] (])Giving links is "not required" as per wikipedia policy."
# {{diff|oldid=710978646|diff=710979099|label=Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 06:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|710978958|06:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 710978646 by ] (]) then simply remove the image. Here I'll show u how"
## {{diff2|710979099|06:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Ceasefire */ removing extra image due to concerns. I do not share the said concerns but am simply not ready to engage in dispute."
# {{diff2|710972384|05:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted to revision 710584091 by ] (]): Just when did Guardian become an unacceptable source? (])"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|710978765|06:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]. (])"

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


;<u>Comments:</u>

Persistent Edit Warring and disrupting editing across multiple Articles from past few days. Recent Violation of 3RR by the User on ] and refusing to discuss at talk page, despite been warned enough times (can be seen on his TP )! Please see . Non-Civil behavior while dealing with other users. The user deserve a long period ban. The user has been blocked by the administrators previously at least 3 times for the same reason (can be seen ) i.e., ], Content blanking, POV-Pushing, and Non-Civil behavior. ] (]) 12:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Note: User is currently under investigation at ]- ] (]) 12:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Knee Jerk Reaction'''
@] feel free to open up as many reports as you wish. With your upcoming block we will have some fresh air and perhaps you too will return as a better editor. Removing sourced content/blanking and then claiming that "it is not available to me online, so it must be false" is an age old vandal trick used by disruptive users since the inception of wikipedia and it is undone with prejudice. Misplaced Pages allows reliable sources that are offline. And an news article written in the Guardian newspaper is mighty reliable. So feel free to read up on ] and please stop your disruption. As for the claim that I am being "investigated" as a sock, well one of two things is going on. Either Mblaze is lying, yes I mean he is just making up stuff and thinking, "What the heck, let me just lie about this stuff too, these guys will fall for it", OR there is an invisible SPI going on which I have not been invited to and only Mblaze known about it. ] (]) 12:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:Both editors involved are as bad as one another. I've seen FLCC on ''numerous'' administrator noticeboards and I'd like to think I'm not the only one who thinks that this needs drawing to a close. This immature edit warring, violating the 3RR and counter-filing reports simply goes to show how awfully pathetic this is. It is unbelievable that these editors think the community should be wasting any of its time on them. I am therefore proposing blocks on both sides per ], perhaps an indef for FLCC as their name has come up one too many times on these noticeboards for my liking (and I'm sure most editors on here are in agreement with me). Absolutely unbelievable. --] ] 12:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Chesnaught555}} my humble request to you, to please investigate the entire case carefully, I have never violated any Misplaced Pages policy nor my name has ever came on the noticeboard (Except this one-today even tho I didn't violated 3RR). Thank You ] (]) 12:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:::{{U|MBlaze Lightning}} - the part about somebody's name constantly appearing on AN was directed at FLCC. Furthermore, you ''have'' violated Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring - one need not violate 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. --] ] 12:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
::::{{U|Chesnaught555}} FLCC? Sorry, didn't get you!? And I am innocent here in this case, I had always discussed the matter at talk page with other editors whenever I have found myself in dispute and had never went beyond 2RR (2RR- that too just 2 times, I guess) to date, please do have a look at my contributions, I had always contributed in a good faith to wiki to date and will continue to do so and that is why I have been granted the reviewer rights! So I believe, I should be exempt from the apparent upcoming block and should be given a last and only chance even if I had violated Edit Warring? Please!? Thank You. ] (]) 13:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::{{U|MBlaze Lightning}} - for the record, FLCC = FreeatlastChitchat. Neither of you are innocent, you are both edit-warring. --] ] ] 13:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::{{U|Chesnaught555}} My are decent enough to prove my Innocency. I had always contributed in a good-faith manner and had been never accused of vandalism/Edit-Warring/Sock-Puppetry/etc to date (Edit Warring- Except this one). Contrary to FreeatlastChitchat, I had never been block, nor had been accused of disrupting editing to date. The report filled by FreeatlastChitchat is also based on 2RR as I had not violated 3RR, furthermore, you are requested to visit talk pages of the respected articles, FreeatlastChitchat mentioned, I had always discussed the dispute on almost all of those article's talk pages. This should be seen as ]. So, yes I'm innocent in this case! ] (]) 13:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::{{U|MBlaze Lightning}} - sorry, no such thing as a "correct" or "innocent" party in edit-warring. As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, you are both in the wrong. I am now going to defer this to an administrator, and I therefore kindly ask that you refrain from pinging me. --] ] ] 16:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
*{{AN3|pe}} There is no 3RR violation here but there is a multi-party edit war. Hopefully a 1RR restriction won't be required once protection expires. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|86.139.178.202}}

<!-- 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: (and earlier )

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

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Not technically "3RR" but persistently edit warring over the last month to replace scrupulously sourced content with earlier version that was almost entirely unsourced (and contained many list entries that were out-of-scope). Attempts at warning this IP have come to naught. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:Have notified IP of this entry on the noticeboard, as that is one of the requirements of filing the report. ] (]) 16:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
:: Thanks for that! Was meaning to do that last, but got distracted... --] <small>(] • ])</small>

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|Metrojet Flight 9268}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Ahunt}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|711037129|16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Reverted, the consensus at ] is to not change this now. You need a consensus there first"
# {{diff2|711034194|16:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "reverted, see the talk page"
(This is a 1RR SCW&ISIL DS article.)

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|711040885|16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on ]. (])"
# {{diff2|711044623|17:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* March 2016 */"

;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|711040470|16:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack */ new section"
# {{diff2|711043827|17:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack */"
# {{diff2|711047775|17:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack */"

;<u>Comments:</u>

Ahunt has already reverted 4 different editors by inserting the same "under investigation" text, breaching 1RR with the last revert. I've tried to discuss on his talk page but he refuses to relent and accused me of edit warring instead. I'm fine with a warning, since this appears to be an otherwise productive editor. ] (]) 17:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

*{{AN3|p}} I have protected the article for the moment, Ahunt is just one of many editors applying the current consensus on the term to be used in the infobox, clearly Legacypac doesnt agree so continues to be disruptive against the consensus, not sure "Discussion over" use my version is a constructive disccussion method. That said it is better if discussion continues on the talk page throwing warnings around will not help. But all editors should note the 1RR restrictions on this article ] (]) 18:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Penguin888}}

;Previous version reverted to:

{{hat|1=List of diffs. Click to view. ] (]) 01:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC) }}
;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|711098174|21:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711097960 by ] (]) I've reported you for your vandalism on the page already."
# {{diff2|711097857|21:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711097692 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|711097362|21:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711097136 by ] (]) A leak is not a broadcast delay."
# {{diff2|711096728|21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711096651 by ] (]) They've already been posted."
# {{diff2|711096207|21:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711096122 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|711095948|21:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711095843 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|711095557|21:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711095429 by ] (]) No matter leak or not, the rules state you can't spoil an episode before it airs."
# {{diff2|711095328|21:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711095179 by ] (]) Vandalism at this point."
# {{diff|oldid=711095024|diff=711095113|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|711095063|21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711094958 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|711095113|21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711095024 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|711094981|21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711094885 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|711094918|21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Episode Three: RuCo's Empire */"
# {{diff|oldid=711093743|diff=711094859|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|711094740|21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|711094807|21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Contestants */"
## {{diff2|711094859|21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Lip-syncs */"
# {{diff|oldid=711088071|diff=711091585|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|711090655|21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "]Blanked the page"
## {{diff2|711090744|21:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} ""
## {{diff2|711091284|21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "You are not allowed to post spoilers before the episode airs, it's listed in the rules why you can't do this."
## {{diff2|711091426|21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Contestants */"
## {{diff2|711091488|21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Lip-syncs */"
## {{diff2|711091585|21:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Episode Three: RuCo's Empire */"
# {{diff|oldid=711079435|diff=711079500|label=Consecutive edits made from 20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|711079463|20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711079341 by ] (]) IT HAS NOT AIRED YET. You cannot have spoilers in a Misplaced Pages for episodes that haven't aired."
## {{diff2|711079500|20:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711079435 by ] (])"
# {{diff|oldid=711079200|diff=711079315|label=Consecutive edits made from 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|711079211|20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711078758 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|711079261|20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711079200 by ] (])"
## {{diff2|711079315|20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711078888 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|711079167|20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711079057 by ] (])"
# {{diff2|711078997|20:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Episode Three: RuCo's Empire */ EPISODE THREE HAS NOT AIRED YET"
# {{diff|oldid=711078034|diff=711078718|label=Consecutive edits made from 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC) to 20:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|711078587|20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "EPISODE 3 HAS NOT AIRED YET."
## {{diff2|711078718|20:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Lip-syncs */ EPISODE THREE HAS NOT AIRED YET"

{{hab}}
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

;<u>Comments:</u>
Both ] and ] warned at their talks. Both advised to use article talk and not modify article until consensus is reached. Both complying at the moment. ] (]) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page: {{pagelinks|RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8)}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Jwebbs913}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|711097960|21:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "give me an official Misplaced Pages policy on verified, but unaired, spoilers please."
# {{diff2|711097692|21:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711097362 by ] (])
# {{diff2|711097136|21:49, 20 march 2016 (UTC)}} "hmu w/ a link then. Misplaced Pages:spoiler says that broadcast delay cannot be used as a reason for omitting verifiable information"
# {{diff2|711096651|21:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "(i'm waiting for you to show in the official Misplaced Pages policies that spoilers from unaired episodes cannot be added."
# {{diff2|711096122|21:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "show me the official Misplaced Pages policy on unaired spoilers. the project on spoilers said that broadcast delays cannot be used as a reason for exclusion of verifiable information. cite your sources please"
# {{diff2|711095843|21:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "show me the official Misplaced Pages policy on unaired spoilers. the project on spoilers said that broadcast delays cannot be used as a reason for exclusion of verifiable information. cite your sources please"
# {{diff2|711095429|21:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}"screencaps of episode events here: http://imgur.com/a/VBnsR; your's is vandalism at this point"
# {{diff2|711095179|21:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|711095024|21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|711094958|21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 711094918 by Penguin888 (talk)"
# {{diff2|711094885|21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "not even gonna try to give a reason? work fish"
# {{diff2|711093743|21:31, 20 march 2016 (UTC)}} "show me the official Misplaced Pages policy on unaired spoilers. what i've read said that as long as it's verifiable (see entire screencapped episode here: http://imgur.com/a/VBnsR), then it's fair game"

After partial discussion:
# {{diff2|711109421|23:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "we've established that spoilers are a-ok in the talk page."
# {{diff2|711109802|23:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)}} "formatting i suck at sometime (s) // talk page says that spoilers are ok"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>
Both ] and ] warned at their talks. Both advised to use article talk and not modify article until consensus is reached. Both complying at the moment. ] (]) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

;Page:
* {{pagelinks|Violetta (telenovela)}}
* {{pagelinks|List of Violetta characters}}
;User being reported: {{userlinks|85.229.164.17}}

;Previous version reverted to:

;Diffs of the user's reverts:
# {{diff2|711225205|16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Main cast */"
# {{diff2|710159266|08:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)}} "/* Main characters */"

;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


;<u>Comments:</u>

This IP won't give up, continuing to add unnecessary nicknames to both ] and ], and cleverly trying to avoid sanctions by waiting a month or more between the edits. Before you say they haven't been warned recently, I'm not even sure what warning to give anymore but it seems clearly the same user based on ] and they've had a lot of chances to discuss it already but refuse to cooperate. ] (]) 16:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ivan Kozhedub}} </br>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Viggen}}

* Dear collegues, I would be glad to hear your opinion about the situation in the article about Soviet military aviator ]. According to the rules of Wikiperia I tried to explain ] that Kozhedub's birthplace is ], which existed from 1919 till 1991. According to Viggen's logic there is no any matter that Kozhedub's place of birth ''de facto'' was Ukrainian SSR because it was not recognized at this period by major of countries. From that reason Viggen tried to describe Ukrainian People's Republic (existed from 1918 till 1921) as Kozhedub's place of birth, although already in 1920 this political creation didn't controled the territory of Kozhedub's place of birth.

* ] (see: ]) and I tried to explain Viggen the fact that Kozhedub's place of birth is Ukrainian SSR. ] has also written: "The legitimacy of UkSSR is hardly less than the legitimacy of the Ukraine People Republic (well, UkSSR had lately a seat in UN). Thus, no reason to change UkSSR to UPR." (See here: ). But even after that Viggen disregards historical facts and systematically tries to proclame Ukrainian People's Republic as Kozhedub's place of birth, which it couldn't be.

* At least '''six times''' or even more times he reverted the information about Kozhedub's place of birth on the page about Ivan Kozhedub. See diffs of the user's reverts: , , , , , . According to ] and arguments on the talk page about Kozhedub I suggest, that Viggen should be blocked from editing of the article about Kozhedub. ] (]) 14:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
** I agree that the issue should be decided by Administrators ASAP as ] totally ignored the basic rules of wikipedia regarding to the place of birth. Please check the arguments on the Talk page. I think that ] is directly applicable to ]'s actions, but not to me as I reverted the actions which could be regarded as vandalism. Furthermore, please check the input of Ушкуйник and you will see that all his activities are dedicated to convert Ukrainian people (even most prominent) into Russians. Please also check his talk page - it was discussed many times + he has 2 bans. I think it could be reasonable to impose topic-ban on Ukrainian topics for ].--] (]) 17:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
*** Dear ], thank you very much for your opinion, but it has nothing to do with constructive critic of my contributions. I have a good grasp of history and make contributions only in the articles about topics, which I realy know. It's true, I had 2 bans long time ago in the past, but it is absolutely irrelevalt for our actual discussion about Kozhedub and your tring to make an original research in the article about him. Could you show me any reliable sources to protect your thesis about Ukrainian People's Republic as the place of Kozhedub's birth? ] (]) 18:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Result:''' Both ] and ] are warned. If this war continues blocks will be issued. For the future, please consider the new comment at ] by ] who has . Warring about the ethnicity of people and place names is a traditional activity of nationalist edit warriors, and the sanctions of ] are available to deal with it. ] (]) 01:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Battle of Mu'tah}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kasif the great}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

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


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

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User:Kasif has been edit warring to change the sourced result of the battle to "''Tactical Muslim victory''". and started explaining and listing sources(12 stating Byzantine victory) with quotes concerning this battle(12 March 2016). Seeing how Kasif has not seen fit to use the article talk page, <u>I waited over a week for a response on the article talk page, then restored the referenced information to the article</u>, Kasif then starts posting nonsense on my talk page about how, "''''". Yet Kasif chosen '''NOT''' to engage in discussion on the article talk page! Today Kasif restarts edit warring, removing referenced information(''Byzantine victory'') and replacing it with his opinion(''Tactical Muslim victory'')

This editor has also tried to write their opinion into the ], despite what the referenced quote states. Clearly this editor has chosen to be disruptive, not sure what their issue is. --] (]) 17:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Guru Arjan}} <br />{{pagelinks|Islam and Sikhism}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ms Sarah Welch}}

Ms Sarah Welch has continuously edit warred on the above two mentioned articles, and only stopped after she reached the 3rd revert in 24 hours.

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

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# - I was the one to tell her to talk.
#
#

Hello moderators, ] had constantly been edit-warring with me on these articles and kept reverting my edits despite them being clearly sourced and doing whatever she wants. In fact now she seems to have started edit-warring again this time with another user . She had also kept bossing me around because I'm new. I too had edit-warred but she was let go scot-free by ]. This is my second time making a complaint, so forgive me if something is wrong in the format.

I had earlier made a complaint about her at ANI under the section . However it was closed by ] without considering it after he when ] reported me. Ian.Thomson claimed on my that she did not violate 3RR. That too despite ] clearly stating that "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." And my block shouldn't affect whether the other user should be blocked. Ian.thomson has clearly violated the due process and rules.

Not only that, instead of accepting she has edit-warred, ] started giving reasons to justify her edit-warring and all of them were frivolious and nothing more than misunderstandings.

The dispute between me and Ms Sarah Welch started when I to the text about ]'s martyrdom. She continued to revert me . We talked at the ] and I proved her claims wrong there, yet she insists she was right. After proving her wrong I added the original text back again but she it back again. I even warned her that I'll complain about her if she continued to edit-war. However she refuses to listen. Fed up with the edit-warring I her and warned her the last time.
This pattern was also repeated at ] where I warned her several times not to break the rules. She first completely removed my sourced edits after ] was blocked saying taht they were edits of blocked editors, even though they were mine. She my edits again falsely claiming they were personal opinions when in actual they were sourced content. I proved that my edits were sourced at ], which proves her claims of reading the sources to check my edits are false. I reverted her but she reverted me . I reverted her . She reverted me . I reverted her .

Then I got fed up of the constant edit-warring, decided enough is enough and as earlier told complained about her at ANI. However, as already told ] quashed it. Not only that Ms Sarah Welch into over-detail to try to justify her edit-warring at my complaint, even though edit-warring isn't justifiable no matter what reason you have. And it seems to me that she has started it again now.

She cannot be let go scot-free. Based on her behaviour of disruptive edit-warring, I ask her to be blocked for a period of time. Thank you. ] (]) 18:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:*This is a repeat case, that went through and also through . The ANI case has been closed. See response of admins {{ping|Ian.thomson}}, {{ping|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}}, {{ping|MaxSem}} to above of @SiddharthSunny while @SiddharthSunny was on 36-hour block. See also the to admin @MaxSem by @SiddharthSunny, and insults/disruptive style on ] after the 36-hour block expired. Pinging {{ping|Omni Flames}}, {{ping|JimRenge}} as they have intervened and recently reverted edits to the ] article. ] (]) 18:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

] ] had it simply because I was blocked and you hadn't made more than 3 reverts on a single article in 24 hours even though you had been edit-warring. As I have already told ] has violated the due process. My actions do not exonerate your actions and even if you do not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours on an article, you are still edit-warring. ] engaged with another editor. Only ] engaged me. Also to the admins, please note Ms Sarah Welch is making bad faith comments and falsely accusing me of her which I have already rebutted. She is also trying to victimise me by constantly pointing out my block. This is against the rules. ] (]) 19:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also here's evidence of her past edit-warring and violation of other rules where she has been warned as well:
# - An experienced editor ] warned her for being constantly uncivil to others.
# - Mohanbhan again warning her, this time for ]
# Warning to her to stop edit-warring, an experienced user ] even recognised and accepted she did edit-war
#, - Edit-warring over a well-sourced edit and harassing of other users. She even herself that she was wrong.

She should be blocked this instant as her past behaviour shows that she is a disruptive editor. ] (]) 19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:Please see also . ] (]) 19:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

::{{reply|JimRenge}} I checked the SPI. And it seems clear she started the SPI only after my reverts. Seems a clear harrsment attempt to stifle me and other users through false accusations. I think I should file a SPI complaint about her as well. But, this is about her edit-warring over here. What claims she makes about me are not relevant. What do you think of her edit-warring? ] (]) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:::You mean ]. Funny, that a user with 111 edits knows this template <nowiki>{{Reply|Username}}</nowiki>. I've made over 42,000 edits, and I didn't know this one yet. ] -] 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Of the diffs you've provided, three are to ] and four are to ]. Ian.thomson already explained to you that 3RR counts per page. Of the four diffs for Guru Arjan, the first is by SiddharthSunny, two are by MSW, and one is by Omni Flames. Apart from ], we can also look at ], not to mention the SPI, for which I expect Js82 to be involved again. ] -] 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{ping|Joshua Jonathan}} But Mohanbhan still has experience, and I wasn't comparing him. The point was Ms Sarah Welch's uncivil behaviour. Also please note that 3RR can be breached even without making more than 3 reverts. ] (]) 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
:Whoever you are, isn't it time to let it go? You can't build your wiki-career on hating another editor, can you? ] -] 20:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
How am I hating? And no I'm not letting it slide, she broke the rules. I'm not complaining about me getting blocked which just recently expired. Also not to mention she has harrased me because I'm new and inexperienced. And she has a past of such behaviour. ] (]) 20:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:* The new list of allegations above, posted at 19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC), using @Mohanbhan as leverage, is strange. This new list is not about current edit warring. It is a collection of distorted allegations compiled by the highly active blocked sock account and posted on ANI in January 2016. I addressed the concerns with @Mohanbhan , and I will not repeat it here. The January ANI/edit-war complaint was . I will note that @Js82's socks, which @SiddharthSunny is repeating above, have been traced to persistent harassment, one which has required multiple periods of protection of my talk page. It is unusual that @SiddharthSunny, a new account, knows all this @Js82/@Mohanbhan stuff, lectures on what the due process of wikipedia is, lists the same identical allegations from a blocked account, so quickly and with diffs. Looks like an obvious case of new accounts driven ] to me, one that has adversely affected the quality of Sikhism-related wiki articles, and one which has been persistently disruptive and such a time sink for all the veteran editors like @Joshua Jonathan and others, as well as admins. ] (]) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Your past is related to the current edit-warring. Because it shows that you often do this, this isn't the first time. What I said about you is the complete truth ]. That you to someone warning you not to be uncivil, or whether an earlier complaint was isn't going to help you exonerate yourselves. In actual the ealier ANI complaint made by Mohanbhan just proves it more that you indeed violate the rules often. You have been warned many times for , , edit-warring and . And a npte to everyone, please note that she now seems to be claiming that I'm Tocic45 and/or Js42's sock both here and at the SPI. I added all of the things Tocic45 told me after reading through them and I found that you have been warned several times for auch behaviour. Claims of "copy-and-paste" or "sock" are not going to help. You have repeatedly violated the rules and you should be blocked to prevent repetition of such behaviour. ] (]) 21:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
*'''Result:''' ] and ] are both blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing, based on the history of their changes at ] and the talk page. It is unusual that a new account (25 February) such as SiddharthSunny is so well-informed about an existing dispute. Akhar's account was created on 14 March. New accounts that are this aggressive are often found to be socks. My favorite edit of AkhtarHussain83 is from 19 March, . That's a good way to start out a new account on the right foot, and to encourage the belief you might be one of the blocked editors. See also ]. ] (]) 21:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
*:
*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:05, 8 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    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)
    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

    User:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Chance997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "a ] containing an ] alien ]" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words "red-striped black hedgehog" at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the fictional hedgehog in question). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, User:Carlinal and User:Barry Wom, citing MOS:OVERLINK as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at Sonic the Hedgehog 2 to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:ToadGuy101 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: 2024 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: ToadGuy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267757647 by CipherRephic (talk)"
    2. 14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267751974 by John (talk)Stop whining about him"
    3. 14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267747738 by Czello (talk)"
    4. 13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2024 United Kingdom general election."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

    Comments:

    User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Mindxeraser reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)

    Page: 1000mods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mindxeraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 reported by User:DandelionAndBurdock (Result: /64 blocked two weeks)

    Page: Fernanda Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
    2. 20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    3. 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    4. 20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    5. 20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Blocked – for a period of two weeks The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Csknp reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Page already protected)

    Page: Template:Twenty20 competitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    2. 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio

    Comments: This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. Vestrian24Bio 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... Vestrian24Bio 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:5.187.0.85 reported by User:Darth Stabro (Result: /21 blocked for three years)

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

    User being reported: 5.187.0.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102408 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    2. 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102323 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    3. 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102267 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    4. 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268101988 by MrOllie (talk)"
    5. 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268074482 by MrOllie (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

    Blocked – for a period of 3 years The range 5.187.0.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) by Ahect Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Ahmed al-Sharaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BubbleBabis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. (31 December 2024)
    2. (6 January 2024)
    3. (7 January 2025)
    4. (8 January 2025)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 January 2025)


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

    Comments: The user was warned multiple times to not insert poorly sourced contentious material in a page which is a living person's biography. Despite this, the user has continued to insert original research, while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.

    Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Sokoreq reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Science of Identity Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Cambial Yellowing (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"
    2. 18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
    3. 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267995628 by Hipal (talk)"
    4. 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hipal (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "3rr"


    Comments:

    User:Garudam reported by User:Someguywhosbored (Result: )

    Page: History of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Garudam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: he removed my warning for whatever reason

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))

    • Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
    PS: Their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. Garuda 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
      “ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
      wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
      “Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
      Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
      “ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
      The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
      Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
      It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories: