This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 8 August 2023 (Archiving 5 discussion(s) from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:08, 8 August 2023 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 5 discussion(s) from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
User:Dangdude11 reported by User:Raladic (Result: Page protected)
Page: 2023 Bud Light boycott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dangdude11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral. This edit has been discussed at length for days and no sources have been shown to justify the characterization. Advocates for the current language are injecting opinons."
- 12:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I added a statement characterizing the outlets that referred to the backlash as “left wing”, given their left wing bias. I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
- 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
- 01:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 21:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is pushing their WP:POV on a marked contentious topic and despite warnings on the article talk page then went today immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status and multiple times tried to edit and was subsequently reverted, passing 3rr. Raladic (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, the article is not in compliance with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Despite much discussion on the topic, no one can point to any reliable source. I was not warned about this Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#The three-revert rule until just now. Dangdude11 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- The topic is clearly marked as a contentious topic on the article talk page, which comes with extra warnings for users before editing. You should familiarize yourself with them before making edits.
- It also doesn’t look like your exchanges on the talk page have been particularly constructive as multiple users have refuted your claims and promptly reverted your edit (which you made immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status to even make them - which may be further seen as a way to WP:GAMING the system) as well.
- The article protection was now raised under the arbcom enforcement for WP:GENSEX to avoid further disruption. Raladic (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I feel that you reported me because of a viewpoint that you are advancing. You say that I have been “refuted” in the talk page, but no one can point to a source that supports their position, even by their own admission. In any event, I don’t plan on making any more edits to the page as Misplaced Pages is showing a systemic bias towards a partisan viewpoint as evidenced by your partial comments here. Dangdude11 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I had included another comment quoting rules for interacting with new editors and for some reason it disappeared. Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- "Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Misplaced Pages, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value."
- "Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value."
- "If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well."
- "Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!"
- "Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not."
- I would think that someone who has been around a while would be aware of these rules and should follow them. I indicated that I wasnt aware of the rules and you assumed bad faith.
- I am also adding in this exception to the warring policy that justifies my actions
- "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."
- The material I removed and was reported for removing was obviously biased. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I request an appeal of this decision. My actions were based in part upon not having a full grasp of the rules. I also think my actions are supported by an exception to the three revert rule.
- I did not realize there was such an ideological bias at Misplaced Pages either. In the future I will be more careful to avoid offending entrenched viewpoints to the point where they feel the need to arbitrarily report me without discussion. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- See above where I was gently guided regarding the characterization of an edit as minor and havent made the same mistake again. That did not happen in this case. I was not made aware of the rules and therefore no sanction is warranted. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
User:93.159.183.71 reported by User:Wikipedialuva (Result: Already blocked)
Page: Planetary science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.159.183.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 06:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166697746 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism by editor who is spamming my talk page with dishonest templates"
- 06:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166697647 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism"
- 06:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166696676 by The Herald (talk) yes, do that"
- 06:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166630757 by GeogSage (talk) user clearly just dislikes IP edits. no convincing rationale for including this material"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 06:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Planetary science."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User has repeatedly blanked their usertalk as well. Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- This user has no interest in the content of the page. They have made zero edits to the article or its talk page. They obviously haven't made any attempt to resolve the "dispute", because they have no interest in it. They are merely hoping to "bag" a block. I find such behaviour to be inherently disruptive. Editors should edit to improve articles; this editor is not doing that. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- The irrelevant comment that I have removed comments from my own talk page is also malicious in intent. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment by uninvolved user: This IP editor sounds a lot like WP:LTA/BKFIP. Sharing the same characteristics of edit warring, arguing in edit summaries, subtly attacking other editors, and removing warnings from their talk pages as previous BKFIPs I have seen and dealt with in the past (e.g. see this archived ANI thread). — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Total nonsense by an editor I have never encountered before, who also has no interest in the content of the article, and whose intent seems to be purely to disrupt. They also clearly do not understand WP:OWNTALK. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, didn't know about the category Category:Misplaced Pages long-term abuse – Active. Impressive that you can actually recognize individuals like that. Reading the messages you linked does sound quite a bit like the guest user being discussed in this thread. They immediately assumed my first revert was because they were an IP user, ignoring that as the one who wrote some of what they deleted, I might have legitimate objections. That hostility was a bit of a surprise. Interesting to see this might be an infamous user I crossed paths with. I hope they can stop being hostile to differing viewpoints, as they do seem to be a bit knowledgeable. GeogSage 22:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- This vandal continues to violate WP:3RR on Planetary Science. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Calbruce67 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Takbir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Calbruce67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 11:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Usage in Islamic rituals */ Eleven functions of the use of 'Allah Akbar'"
- Consecutive edits made from 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) to 03:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "CAIR would be so pleased with Misplaced Pages advising the world that 'Allah Akbar' is just a cinematic trope."
- 23:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Beall's List is discredited. The Journal of Academic Librarianship has confirmed Beall's bias against OA journals."
- 23:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Misplaced Pages can no longer be trusted says co-founder Larry Sanger."
- 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Misplaced Pages is anachronistic says AI."
- 02:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Usage by extremists and terrorists */ The New Crusades: Islamophobia and the Global War on Muslims"
- 03:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Adding cite"
- 13:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Sorry - read the discussion."
- 13:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "No no! The agreements following the Talk-Discussion are to: 1. Not to include these issues in the Lede and 2. Not to reference specific instances in the text. This highly, RS, inclusion does not conflict with those agreements in the Talk-Discussion."
- Consecutive edits made from 09:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) to 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Warning: Edit warring on Takbir. */"
- 13:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit warring to impose the UNDUE POV */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This "new editor" who keeps edit warring over their POV refuses to join the discussion (despite multiple invites to do so: in the edit summaries, a ping from the TP and a clear message left on their own TP just to make sure that all the bases are covered). Their edit summaries about Misplaced Pages speaks for themselves. In their last edit, they restored their previous edit which was removed here (by Austronesier, who left a valid explanation on the TP, again ignored by Calbruce67). It's also obvious that Calbruce67 is not "new" given their use of the usual wiki jargon (RS, etc.) that only experienced editors would be familiar with. M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I may be overlooking it, but I see where numbers 1, 3, and 4 above are obvious reverts but I don't see what numbers 2 and 5 are reverts of. @M.Bitton: can you help me out and point out what those diffs are reverts of? - Aoidh (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Aoidh: I don't know if the other two are obvious reverts or no, but one thing is certain, they keep targetting the same section with the same UNDUE POV and refuse to discuss the issue (leaving the others with no choice but to either revert them or let their POV stand). M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Aoidh: Examining number 2, it's obviously just another attempt at introducing the views of International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society (which was reverted previously). M.Bitton (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I don't see an outright 3RR violation but even outside of the above diffs there is a lot of edit warring for an account with only 18 edits, and not a single use of a talk page of any kind. Aoidh (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Martdj reported by User:MrOllie (Result:Partially blocked 24 hours)
Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martdj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166958526 by MrOllie (talk) Stop this. Your behavior is unworthy of a Misplaced Pages editor. This paragraph has no place in this article."
- 20:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166952721 by Newimpartial (talk) This is poorly sourced contentious content. I've explained why in the talk section. Following guidelines, I've removed it. Please, don't undo, but actually discuss."
- 20:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166918736 by Reshadp (talk) by Misplaced Pages policy => Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
- 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) (IP edit) "Removed a defaming paragraph with false claims. The given reference is full of errors and lacks any credibility. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Not a political bulletin. I suggest that the author of the removed paragraph refrains from trying to push his political views and using Misplaced Pages for this."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Proposed statement */ Reply"
Comments:
Profringe edit warring on COVID-19 related article. IP address is obviously the same user, so including that revert as well. MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- They have now self-reverted their edit: diff. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear they self-reverted a 5th edit which is not listed above. I would appreciate that gesture if it weren't accompanied by the spurious retaliatory report below. MrOllie (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Partially blocked – for a period of 24 hours. They made a fifth revert, and did self-revert and went to the talk page afterwards. However, they still violated 3RR after being warned, and after being given a COVID-19 contentious topics notification. On top of this they only began editing the article on July 24 and with the exception of their self-revert, every single edit they have made has been part of this edit-warring. Because they have self-reverted and are using the talk page, the block is a partial block from Martin Kulldorff article itself. - Aoidh (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
User:MrOllie reported by User:Martdj (Result: No violation)
Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:59, 24 July 2023 MrOllie talk contribs 30,910 bytes +744 Reverted 1 edit by Martdj (talk): Stop edit warring to delete properly sourced content
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:
Misplaced Pages's policy states that when contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In accordance with this policy, I removed a paragraph which clearly matched this description and opened a discussion. MrOllie, regretfully, is not up for discussion and hides behind the domain of his source, claiming that his source is credible only on the pretence of the domain that it's hosted on, despite the fact that in the talk section multiple people have already pointed out serious flaws in his source. Also, scientific studies contradict his source. He refuses to discuss further and immediately reinstated the old version with the disputed paragraph, violating Misplaced Pages's policy on contentious material.
I picked up this matter as recently someone described Martin Kulldorff to me as untrustworthy, basing his opinion solely on this single paragraph in his Misplaced Pages article. It shows how important correct wording is in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martdj (talk • contribs) 08:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- The OP has been edit warring against two editors. The claim that MrOllie refuses to discuss the issue is obviously baseless. The content in question was restored by a third editor (following its removal by 109.37.138.75). Last but not least, this is a personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I failed to notice that the OP has already been reported for edit warring (making this retaliatory report completely useless). M.Bitton (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I sense a WP:BOOMERANG incoming. — Czello 10:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I refute that MrOllie has participated in the discussion. If you look at his statements on the talk page, literally his only contribution has been that "his source is credible" without providing any proof for that statement and while multiple people using credible sources have shown his statement to be false.
- I'm glad you agree that the paragraph in question is a personal attack on Mr. Kulldorff and was rightfully deleted. Martdj (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- You misunderstand; the personal attack referred to by M.Bitton is yours, in the edit summary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, though I don't see how they could possibly come to that conclusion given the clear message that I left on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- You misunderstand; the personal attack referred to by M.Bitton is yours, in the edit summary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I failed to notice that the OP has already been reported for edit warring (making this retaliatory report completely useless). M.Bitton (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- No violation Aoidh (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Quanstzurri998 reported by User:Dusti (Result: Indef blocked for sockpuppetry)
Page: Dadvan Yousuf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Quanstzurri998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
- 16:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
- 16:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
- 16:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
- 16:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
- 16:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Came across while using Huggle. Page protection may be a good method of stopping this as well. Dusti 17:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, along with the other accounts editing the page. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Elsharifien reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: EgyptAir Flight 990 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elsharifien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 15:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
- 17:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Elsharifien is edit warring, adding uncited material to multiple articles, and is refusing to engage with multiple warnings from multiple users. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Berocca Addict reported by User:FMSky (Result: Declined)
Page: Jason Aldean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Berocca Addict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 10:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "There are three Notable sources saying the same thing - please stop revert waring"
- 10:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used *with attribution.*"
- 10:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "adding additional sources to reaffirm point at that Aldean is figure head for culture wars - more can be added if required."
- 10:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "/* 2023–present: "Try That in a Small Town" */ Being a figure head for culture war seems very pertinent."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 10:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "/* WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Berocca Addict#WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS and multiple edit summaries on Jason Aldean --FMSky (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Comments:
User blatantly ignores WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS despite being told 3 times to not do so and uses it as a source for politics and societally sensitive issues -- FMSky (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council)." - Consequently, I have constantly ensured to include attribution, and added additional notable sources to support the statement. Despite this, FMSky has engaged in excessive revert waring, which is unfortunate. Berocca Addict (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- you are literally reading and citing the wrong section --FMSky (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- The article is about a singer - "Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, *music*, entertainment, etc.)." - This is the relevant section. Further, you are also disregarding two additional sources in your persistent reverting Berocca Addict (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- You added "Several publications, including Rolling Stone Magazine and the New Yorker highlighted while Aldean had complained about "cancel culture", the right-wing had adopted the song as an anthem in the current culture wars. " ---- This is a purely political topic --FMSky (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- The article is about a singer - "Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, *music*, entertainment, etc.)." - This is the relevant section. Further, you are also disregarding two additional sources in your persistent reverting Berocca Addict (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- you are literally reading and citing the wrong section --FMSky (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council)." - Consequently, I have constantly ensured to include attribution, and added additional notable sources to support the statement. Despite this, FMSky has engaged in excessive revert waring, which is unfortunate. Berocca Addict (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Both editors have violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- because i cited a policy WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS that was blatantly ignored. what else was i supposed to do? --FMSky (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's an information page, not a policy or guideline (and plainly says so), and that's not an excuse for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I didnt know that. Why does this page even exist then and why is there a wiki link to it? --FMSky (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Because it's guidance to good practice. You may be right, but don't use it as an excuse to edit-war. Also, I see no edits to the talkpage, other than your justified removal of IP talkpage trolling. Edit summaries and comments to a perceived opponent's talkpage are not sufficient discussion. Work it out on the talkpage where others can participate. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Okay thats good to know, I thought that whenever there's a link like "WP:Whatever" it always links to a guideline. No i started a discussion on the user's talk page, not on the article's one--FMSky (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I should probably add that the disputed content is now in the article anyway but without the questionable source --FMSky (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oh come on FMSky. You've been here for over two years and made over 150,000 contributions until, today, on the edit warring noticeboard, you learned that not all WP:SHORTCUTS lead to policies, and that edit warring is disruptive even if you're right.
- In response to "What else was I supposed to do?", Misplaced Pages offers a dispute resolution policy and an essay called WP:DISCFAIL I personally find very helpful. User talk pages are good for discussing user conduct, article talk pages are better for discussing article content. Next time, please create a discussion on the article's talk page and invite the other user to it. This allows others to participate and a consensus to be formed, perhaps with an RfC.
- This noticeboard is unsuitable for having an article content discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Noted, but im actually serious, I though that this was a guideline, especially since other users have previously posted it to me. I've know i've made a crapton of edits but i'm still new to a lot of the guidelines --FMSky (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, WP:RSP is as close to a guideline or policy as an information page could be. It is a documentation of consensus, and the some of the discussions linked from the table are huge and document a strong project-wide consensus (WP:RSP#Daily_Mail for example, with Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC). I think the main point here isn't that RSP isn't a policy. The main point is that even if a policy says the same thing, it's still edit warring to enforce it in this way.
- And no worries. It took me almost 10 years to notice that "Undo" in a multi-diff undoes the whole thing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Noted, but im actually serious, I though that this was a guideline, especially since other users have previously posted it to me. I've know i've made a crapton of edits but i'm still new to a lot of the guidelines --FMSky (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Because it's guidance to good practice. You may be right, but don't use it as an excuse to edit-war. Also, I see no edits to the talkpage, other than your justified removal of IP talkpage trolling. Edit summaries and comments to a perceived opponent's talkpage are not sufficient discussion. Work it out on the talkpage where others can participate. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I didnt know that. Why does this page even exist then and why is there a wiki link to it? --FMSky (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's an information page, not a policy or guideline (and plainly says so), and that's not an excuse for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- because i cited a policy WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS that was blatantly ignored. what else was i supposed to do? --FMSky (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Sutyarashi reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page: Khanate of Kalat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sutyarashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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:
The content dispute here is regarding whether the Khanate of Kalat remained under the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire. User Sutyarashi does not regard the sources in my dispute well, and even warns me of 3:RR despite them fringing it themselves as you can see in this diff, . They also were not truthful in quoting text from different sources such as in Iranica. You can see on the talk page where I concluded that Sutyarashi was not being truthful about their quotes, such as this Iranica citation they added on the page, claiming that it attained independence after the rebellion, you can see the diff here: However, after looking into the source, it says this:
""Because Aḥmad Shah needed Naṣīr’s support elsewhere, the new treaty was more equal. The khanate no longer paid tribute or maintained a force at Qandahār. Instead, Kalat provided a fighting force only when the Afghans fought outside their kingdom, and then the khan would be provided with money and ammunition. The new treaty was sealed by a pledge of loyalty to Qandahār and the marriage of the khan’s niece to Aḥmad Shah Abdālī’s son. In the settlement with Qandahār the final accommodation was that the shah gave Naṣīr the title of beglarbegī while the khan recognized him as suzerain."
This very clearly stated that they were still in the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire and this user was not being truthful. Noorullah (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Furthermore, some of the sources added may fail WP:RS on their behalf, such as the one from Taj Mohammad Breseeg, and another one of his sources, under Siddiqi, makes no mention of Kalat still holding independence after the rebellion, it even says that the rebellion was subdued by Ahmad Shah. Other sources like Jonathan Lee and Ashiq elaborate that Kalat was in the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire which you can see on the talk page discussion I linked. Noorullah (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- In another diff, this user reverted my edits because it said that Kalat declared independence in 1758. That wasn't what the dispute was about, the dispute was about the rebellion having been settled in an agreement in which Kalat re-entered Afghan suzerainty. I believe this shows initially that the user was not properly taking into consideration the edits I added, you can see the diff here, and claimed the citations I added only supported their argument, despite it very clearly stating that the Khanate of Kalat remained in Durrani suzerainty. (per the quotes I added, and on the talk page references) Noorullah (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- This user has also had run ins with edit warring before, such as at in the edit warring subsection.
- I'm not sure if this is of further concern, but they were found to be a sockpuppet as seen here per this investigation diff: , which if I am not wrong in, should be an indefinite block, and not a 1 week one? You can also see it in their block logs. Noorullah (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging @Aoidh since they appear to be handling this. See the above for a possible sockpuppet issue. Noorullah (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- In another diff, this user reverted my edits because it said that Kalat declared independence in 1758. That wasn't what the dispute was about, the dispute was about the rebellion having been settled in an agreement in which Kalat re-entered Afghan suzerainty. I believe this shows initially that the user was not properly taking into consideration the edits I added, you can see the diff here, and claimed the citations I added only supported their argument, despite it very clearly stating that the Khanate of Kalat remained in Durrani suzerainty. (per the quotes I added, and on the talk page references) Noorullah (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours . Both editors have violated 3RR. Sutyarashi with the diffs above, and Noorullah21 by undoing (in part) the vassalage wording added by Sutyarashi and then making 3 reverts back-and-forth with . Per WP:EW
The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.
Aoidh (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)- Also as a note, the SPI from a year-and-a-half ago was resolved at that time the way the blocking administrator felt appropriate; per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry#Blocking there is no requirement for an indefinite block for the "main" account. The SPI is not relevant. - Aoidh (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I have also unblocked both editors as they have agreed to not make any reverts on that article for at least the next 24 hours, and to discuss on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Noorullah was edit warring same time on another article Battle of Jalalabad (1710). While Sutyarashi unblock is ok, Noorullah has repeatedly been edit warring and was once blocked before and his appeal for Rollback rights was also denied for exact same reason. 208.184.20.226 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note to admins: the 208.184.20.226 IP address above was blocked on 7 July 2023 as the result of a previous ANEW thread filed by the IP (boomerang action), specifically due to block evasion of another IP, 73.236.210.215, which is still blocked to this day (expires in October this year).
- The Battle of Jalalabad (1710) page has been semi-protected for six months due to disruption from multiple IPs, also the talk page of that article shows there is discussion from the editors involved in the editing dispute, including the IPs and Noorullah21, so I do not see a significant problem there.
- And here's a quick shortcut to the request for rollback permissions by Sutyarashi if anyone wants to have a look at it: permalink. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Noorullah was edit warring same time on another article Battle of Jalalabad (1710). While Sutyarashi unblock is ok, Noorullah has repeatedly been edit warring and was once blocked before and his appeal for Rollback rights was also denied for exact same reason. 208.184.20.226 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I have also unblocked both editors as they have agreed to not make any reverts on that article for at least the next 24 hours, and to discuss on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also as a note, the SPI from a year-and-a-half ago was resolved at that time the way the blocking administrator felt appropriate; per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry#Blocking there is no requirement for an indefinite block for the "main" account. The SPI is not relevant. - Aoidh (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Eliasrou reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: SOMA (architects) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eliasrou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
- 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) to 14:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
- 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Selected projects */"
- 14:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Selected projects */"
- Consecutive edits made from 14:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) to 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 14:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC) to 14:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 13:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC) to 13:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- 13:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
- 13:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167227689 by Eliasrou (talk)"
- 13:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
- 13:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
- 13:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 15:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Final Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Keeps adding unsourced content, and edit warring Notrealname1234 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Simplyred90 reported by User:SpaceEconomist192 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Regional power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Simplyred90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Italy
- Regional power
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:
The user has been edit warring the whole day with plenty of different users in the Italy article. Simplyred90 is also very likely block evading, the account became prolifically active after IP Special:Contributions/87.6.189.15 got blocked (see also Special:Contributions/79.23.193.41). Simplyred90 edits the same pages, removes the same content, makes the same arguments, engages in edit war with the same users, has the same edit style and has poor English skills just like the previously mentioned IPs.
The user is also engaging in edit war in the regional power article, the page needs extended confirmed protection, it has been suffering from edit warring over the same content ad nauseam. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm noy the same person.You are vandalizing Regional power editing that Spain is in G20. Simplyred90 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- You are trying to block a right person. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Spain isn't a member of G20. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- He is vandalazing attacking not guilty person and addding false things. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Now i'm trying to report SpacEconomist192 ,the real guilty person. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- He is vandalazing attacking not guilty person and addding false things. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Spain isn't a member of G20. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- You are trying to block a right person. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Varoon2542 reported by User:SashiRolls (Result: Stale)
Page: Killing of Nahel Merzouk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Varoon2542 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: not sure what is being asked here. 9 July, 18 July, status quo ante: 23 July
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
request to undo their 4th revert and to remove personal attacks from talk pages: 23 July,
link to their deletion on 23 July of the previous warning (19 July):
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19 July, 15 July
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Insofar as there are claims of edit-warring on three different pages this month on this user's talk page, as well as a very clear habit of making personal attacks, it seemed to me best to file this report. -- SashiRolls 16:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I)
- User:SashiRolls was previously banned from Misplaced Pages
- He was unbanned on the 15th of January 2023 on the condition of staying away from conflict
- To quote User:ScottishFinnishRadish
- "Stay away from anything contentious, and stay away from any conflict. I suggest you self-impose 0rr, and unwatchlist and leave any article where you're involved in any conflict. You have vanishingly little rope left, and many that supported the unban also made it clear that this would be the last chance."
- To quote User:Starship.paint
- "Welcome back. Now, please, no more comments on your opponents. Stay away from anything remotely controversial. I very much hope I made the right decision to vote to unban"
- User:Jusdafax, User:Buffs, User:Objective3000 might want to confirm
- II)
- I have participated on the talk page of the article "The killing of Nahel Merzouk" at the request of User:SashiRolls
- Nobody else has. It seems there is Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus on the of the introduction.
- To have a proper idea of the issue. I highly recommend to read the explanations given for the edits and what has been discussed on the talk page
- Him calling me the (Indian) person was deemed as irrelevant and inappropriate by User:Starship.paint and was asked not to repeat the ethnic slur by user:Nil Einne
- III)
- ] Here is the talk page of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, the other article he is mentioning and where he isn't involved. As you can see, a discussion is already taking place.
- IV)
- Contrary to User:SashiRolls, I've never been banned from Misplaced Pages even if some have very quickly sent me warnings when it's not in my habit to do so.
- The only time, I was seriously bothered. The editor who did so, Satrar, was ultimately himself/herself banned from Misplaced Pages ZLEA can confirm
- Before any decision is taken, I would just like everyone to have a look at the edits made by User:SashiRolls and me and judge who's warring and who is reverting what can be qualified as activism if not vandalism
- I'm tired Varoon2542 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
people from Harigaon in Bhojpur district, the ancestral village of Ramgoolam, however, rejected the claim and said he was a Koiree, a backward caste considered lower on the caste ladder than Kurmis. Their argument: Mohit Ramgoolam, the grandfather of the Mauritian Prime Minister who had migrated from the village was called Mohit Mahto before he went and Mahtos are Koirees.
- User Varoon has some WP:CIR issue, as I can guess from Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. The above quote is from a good source (Indian express newspaper is considered WP:RS). Now this source tells us that caste of Seeosagar Ramgoolam was Koeri as claimed by his native villagers. However other source, put by user there says that he was Kurmi. Now as per policies, we need to put both views. But this user is doing WP: SYNTHESIS on the basis of another source which says that on island of Mauritius Koeri and Kurmi both are denoted by term 'vaish'. So he is completely ommiting the reference of Koeri origin and putting only one view by joining both sources himself. I tried to discuss on talk page of article, but he is probably not aware of WP:3RR and WP:AGF, continuosly edit warring on that article without reply. He even neglected the advice of two admins and continuously reverting it, this user should be banned.-Admantine123 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Varoon2542: While SashiRolls's comment on you was unacceptable, it's been removed and AFAIK SashiRolls has never repeated it. In any case, even if they did, the place to deal with that would be at WP:ANI not here. It seems clear that you've broken 3RR so I strongly suggest you self revert. Neither SashiRoll's previous comment on you nor anything else you mentioned is an excuse for a bright line violation. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I saw that I was pinged in this discussion. You don't need me to confirm that Satrar was blocked (not banned, there is a difference) as a sockpuppet. I know nothing about this dispute, so I'll stay out of this discussion. - ZLEA T\ 19:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Just commenting since I came across this due to the ping, AFAICT, the first diff shows an edit not a revert so it's not a bright line violation. I'm not sure if even the second edit is a revert. Of course the lack of a bright line violation doesn't prevent sanction for edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is obviously inaccurate. Admins are encouraged to ignore this erroneous statement. All four reverts are the same reverts that Varoon2542 has been repeatedly making since 9 July (in the case of the lede) and 16 July (in the case of the Ivan Rioufol op-ed being mentioned in the body), restoring his preferred text verbatim. It is to be noted that CNews has been warned by the French audiovisual regulatory body for failing to respect its "obligation to honesty and rigor in the presentation and treatment of the news" as a result of this same Rioufol. (Cf. CNews) -- SashiRolls 18:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry you're right I am mistaken. I got confused since you linked to a "status quo ante" version as the previous version. But this is not what the editor is reverting to which we would expect in that field but instead is what the editor is reverting against (which is unimportant since it can be seen in the diffs). Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, like I said, I didn't understand what I was being asked there. Basically, the main problem is the use of "French people of Arabo-Islamic background" which Varoon2542 has edit-warred into the lede a shocking number of times now, despite the term not being used in any sources. -- SashiRolls 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Declined While Varoon does have enough of a history to make some sanctions a consideration, here before going across the line they backed off and have not edited the article in two days (Of course, should they return and resume the same behavior, there is ample room for reconsideration). Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, like I said, I didn't understand what I was being asked there. Basically, the main problem is the use of "French people of Arabo-Islamic background" which Varoon2542 has edit-warred into the lede a shocking number of times now, despite the term not being used in any sources. -- SashiRolls 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Daniel Case, please keep a tab on Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, as they probably don't understand the things like WP:SYNTHESIS. They will surely revert to their version again, after coming out of hibernation.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Let me know on my talk page if and when. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry you're right I am mistaken. I got confused since you linked to a "status quo ante" version as the previous version. But this is not what the editor is reverting to which we would expect in that field but instead is what the editor is reverting against (which is unimportant since it can be seen in the diffs). Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is obviously inaccurate. Admins are encouraged to ignore this erroneous statement. All four reverts are the same reverts that Varoon2542 has been repeatedly making since 9 July (in the case of the lede) and 16 July (in the case of the Ivan Rioufol op-ed being mentioned in the body), restoring his preferred text verbatim. It is to be noted that CNews has been warned by the French audiovisual regulatory body for failing to respect its "obligation to honesty and rigor in the presentation and treatment of the news" as a result of this same Rioufol. (Cf. CNews) -- SashiRolls 18:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
User:49.206.131.126 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: Father of the Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.206.131.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 00:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167268392 by CX Zoom (talk)"
- 03:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167169160 by Adakiko (talk)"
- 03:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168995 by Adakiko (talk)"
- 03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168561 by Adakiko (talk) The tile "Father of the nation" is sometimes used for Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in India but Part III, Article 18 of the Indian Constitution prohibits conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State.Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page). Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 1 month This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
References
User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)
Resolved. Whilst remaining unhappy with Misplaced Pages's rules on sourcing, the new editor has agreed to move away from the article. — Trey Maturin™ 17:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On Democratic Socialists of America, new user Sniff snaff (talk · contribs) is adding a criticism section sourced to a Medium blog post and to Twitter, saying, in the face of WP:MEDIUM, that nothing on Misplaced Pages prevents the use of random blog posts on Medium being used to source accusations. I disagree, but my reverts are being reverted and I'm not prepared to edit war. Further eyes would be useful. — Trey Maturin™ 15:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! User User:Trey Maturin continues to avoid the simple question of whether they read the citation in question or not. Misplaced Pages does not smile upon such shoddy editing. Trey: did you read the citation or not? Sniff snaff (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
User:Schizo15523 reported by User:Vinegarymass911 (Result: Blocked indef)
Page: Noakhali Zilla School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Schizo15523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168873900 by Vinegarymass911 (talk) broaded"
- 15:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168866102 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced"
- 15:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168863456 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced text"
- 13:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168837302 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced text with current info"
- 05:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168691771 by Mean as custard (talk) The article has been significantly enriched with comprehensive details about various clubs. This enhancement brings a deeper understanding of the club activities, objectives, and member benefits. Readers can now delve into a wealth of information, making their experience more informative and enjoyable."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Noakhali Zilla School."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
A temporary ban would help the user slow down. The user has chosen not to engage and has repeatedly inserted promotional content. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely by me after reading the AIV report. Spam/promo-only account. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)