Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) at 14:23, 15 February 2019 (→User:ElHef & User:B dash reported by User:219.79.97.234 (Result: OP blocked): What is this, "IP editors get the concept of edit warring completely backwards" day?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

User:Fcbjuvenil reported by User:R96Skinner (Result: Both warned)

Page: Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fcbjuvenil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:

Fcbjuvenil believes this footballer, Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992), left his ex-club, Independiente, in 2018 but joined his new club, Monterrey, in 2019. That's despite it being a direct transfer, therefore he'd have to of left/joined at the same time; i.e. the same year. My POV was that he left/joined in 2018, as that's when the transfer was announced. However, I get that's arguable as some editors believe its when the transfer window opens (2019). Fcbjuvenil thinks it should be: left in 2018, joined 2019. Which doesn't make sense. However, I'm willing to compromise at 2019 both ways. Fcbjuvenil continues to blindly revert, avoiding a discussion despite my attempts (see above). R96Skinner (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Fcbjuvenil and User:R96Skinner are warned for edit warring. Since both parties broke 3RR, action won't be taken here. Neither side has used the article talk page which would be the best place to resolve this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That hardly solves the issue, does it? You honestly believe the user would hold a conversation via the article's talk page when they didn't even respond to direct contact, nor respond here. Interesting. You could probably class Fcbjuvenil's edits as vandalism; therefore making the 3RR void. However, I was willing to find a better solution than that by coming here hoping to resolve the issue in some way. I will open a discussion on the article's talk page, which will likely be futile but hopefully I am wrong! R96Skinner (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't use the term WP:VANDALISM unless you are confident that the other party is actually trying to damage the encyclopedia and make it worse, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If a transfer was recorded as of 31 December (as suggested by your source) there might be an ambiguity as to which year he started with the new team. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fcb is still engaging in edit warring at multiple articles. Koncorde (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I believed both parties did not use the talk page very much, despite members of WikiProject Football had preferred their own version or MoS on these transfer (See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#Maximiliano Meza, transfer years), it can be solved by one side of the edit war to start a thread in the player's article talk page or in the project. Matthew hk (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not using the article's talk page at the beginning, likewise with the 3RR. I should've used the talk page earlier, I will do in the future. However, I feel you can understand why I thought it would be rather futile - as it evidently has been, no response whatsoever from User:Fcbjuvenil in three different locations (here, article talk page, NFOOTY talk page) which is a shame. It seems Koncorde has seen similar issue(s) with this user. R96Skinner (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Skylax30 reported by User:Calthinus (Result: blocked)

Page: Gjon Kastrioti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ] -- Skylax30's initial addition of his sources claiming that Albanian medieval nobleman and national hero Gjon Kastrioti was "Greek"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. revert of Cinadon36 ]
2. revert of Resnjari ]
3. revert of Ktrimi991 ]
4. second revert of Ktrimi ] (reinstating this edit ] reverted by Ktrimi ])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

Comments:
With this user it is in fact a chronic problem of using outdated sources, generally in attempts to deny the existence of an Albanian people. He has been previously blocked for such behavior three times, and one more for personal attacks ]. He is also a subject of some of the densest and most frequent sanctioning I've ever seen, on his native Greek wikipedia for behavior in the same vein ]. On the page Gjon Kastrioti he has a particular history demonstrating a long-term fixation with portraying him as non-Albanian, although in terms of what he should be instead, Skylax30 has proved to be rather flexible. He is now arguing the man was Greek, but earlier he was aiding the efforts of a now-banned sockpuppet to claim the man was a Serb.--Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A clear violation of the rules. It is not the first time though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax30's edits clearly demonstrate a prolonged pattern of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior.Resnjari (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The usual accusations and lies by the group of 3 guardians (plus one who never adds anything to an article but only assists in deleting) of the Albanian national myths, who prevent the improvement of relevant articles. I am not "claiming" something about a person being Greek. Articles are written on sources, not on users' opinions. I expanded the article by adding sourced material, which they delete because they don't like. The "outdated" sources mentioning Gjon Kastrioti as Greek are of 2017 and 1968, both published in academic journals. At the same time, the above team of guardians, is preserving in the same article a "fresh" source from 1899 (now number 4) and an obscure source in Russian first published in 1931 (number 3). I added a tag "citation needed" for the claim that he is Albanian (no question there are such sources) and they erase it, with the argument that this is "obvious" (Is the sky blue? Source). See talk . In the talk, Calthinus is personally attacking me with ironies and suggestions to "talk about my feelings in a safe place", with ironies about the Greek WP. The above 3-4 users are acting as a team, not to improve articles but to force an isolated user to "edit war" if he/she tries to change the articles they are patroling. Btw, I would like an opinion by adminis if pointing to previous "sunctioning" of a user (especially in another WP) is accepted as civil behaviour. If the admins board see that I am wrong on the above, I will never edit those "Albanian" articles again. 1899 was not a bad year, after all. --Skylax30 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors with comments such as The usual accusations and lies by the group of 3 guardians (plus one who never adds anything to an article but only assists in deleting) just highlights your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. There is much more out there, but as the report is on Gjon Kastrioti article, the focus is on that in here.Resnjari (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The most frustrating part is not the breaking of 3RR, but the unwillingness to use the Talk Page and follow consensus. When I removed the {{citation needed}} template, I didn't cite obviousness, I wrote: "Removing {{citation needed}}. It is deduced from the main body of the article. ie "In 1386, like many other noblemen from Albania, Gjon became an Ottoman vassal". See also "titles" section. As far as I can understand from the Talk Page, Skylax30 is questioning Kastrioti's origins. Origins do not translate to ethnicity or nationality though"(spelling fixed). In the article one can read at the section "titles"His different titles used in sources include Lord of Emathia and Vumenestia or simply Lord of Mat. In Venetian sources he was also referred to as "lord in Albania" (dominum in Albania), and "lord of the part of Albania" (dominus partium Albanie)." I also checked the article Albanian nobility, at section "Noble families", Kastrioti's family name is there. I also explained my reasoning at the Talk Page . As of now (permalink) I didn't get a respond. I am not tag teaming with nobody. Occam's razor says that if you try to insert fringe opinions in an article and get reverted by 3 other users, it is most probable you are inserting inappropriate material rather than there is a conspiracy.Cinadon36 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 3RR violation. Last block duration was 2 weeks, so 1 month is the standard escalation. If any admin feels this is too harsh, they may reduce. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:Sellpink (Result: No violation)

Page: Child's Play (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Child%27s_Play_(2019_film)&oldid=883056398
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Child%27s_Play_(2019_film)&oldid=883073259

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Child%27s_Play_(2019_film)

Comments:
I simply informed the other party (Rusted AutoParts) that 'title' and not 'name' is the proper term for films and books. His response was to revert my edit and accuse me of being pedantic in the user comments. He was combative and irrational.(Sellpink (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC))

Oh wow are you serious? Not only did you report me for one revert you didn’t even feel obliged to inform me of said report. I’ve addressed your issues in the article’s talk page and you’ve yet to respond, so I’m feeling this may just be some attempt to pick a needless fight. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 13 February 2019 (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. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Usmannoormalik reported by User:Saqib (Result: protected)

Page

Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Babar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Usmannoormalik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883151660 by Saqib (talk)"
2. 15:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883136460 by Saqib (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Babar. (TW)"
2. 16:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "/* February 2019 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This newbie adding OR (such as DoB) despite being advised not to do so. And trying to engage in edit warring. Saqib (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment in my opinion, the 'newbie' feels like bitten. Instead of reverting the full change (blanket undo), removal of only unsourced content might have prevented this edit-war.  samee  converse  16:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Article protected for 1 week. Concur with Samee to some extent. If User:Usmannoormalik is edit warring then so is User:Saqib. I don't want to block both of you at this stage. Suggest discussion at Talk:Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Babar which is currently empty. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yesterday, I was adding stuff with proper references and Saqib was reverting everything I was editing. Even when I put references from official websites of government, he changed it and replaced the reference with a different reference of a private media channel saying later reference was more authentic. So govt. reference isn't authentic enough for him? He just likes to revert everything anyone else writes and then writes same with a few modifications claiming his own contribution. Usmannoormalik (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Usman
  • Your comment reminded me of this edit. Anyhow, Usmannoormalik this isn't a valid excuse for edit-warring on your part as it disrupts the encyclopaedia. In future, get yourself involved on talk page rather than un-doing edits otherwise you may be blocked and lastly, please avoid personal attacks and battleground mentality. Happy editing!  samee  converse  18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:95.93.201.166 reported by User:MapReader (Result: blocked)

Page: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.93.201.166 (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:

Comments:
This is an IP editor with a long history of repeated disruptive editing, tying down multiple editors daily in dealing with edits that continue regardless of any discussion or consensus on the page. As an IP editor it hasn't been possible to communicate or post any warning. MapReader (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. But what do you mean "it hasn't been possible to communicate or post any warning"? They have a talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. And, yes, so they do. Now I feel dumb; I just assumed IPs didn't, because it comes up 'do you want to create the userpage' when you click on the user. I never went further. sorry. MapReader (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

p.s. And you'll have noticed no shortage of warnings from others already there! MapReader (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:175.137.72.188 reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Falooda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.137.72.188 (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:

Comments:

This IP is actively edit-warring against several users (LouisAragon, Oshwah and me), refuses to admit that the sources proposed are reliable, and fails to discuss in a civil manner with others. Please take a look at what Oshwah told him on their talk : . I think that admins attention is required. Thanks.---Wikaviani 19:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

i strongly believe that removal of my RS from shudhganga and refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page and inserting non reliable RS from india today, indianexpress and a persian blog on faloodeh which is irrelevant to the another article falooda and reinstating a irrelevant, non RS, is a violation of wikipedia rules, i have repeatedly asked, why my RS from shudhganga been removed even though its an RS, no replies have been made, the users are from persian backgrounds, i feel that as persians, they are trying to change the indian article in order to make it more persian biased, i have argued that persian faloodeh is a dessert while falooda is milk based beverage which has got persian faloodeh noodle influence in the mughal periods, so i have mentioned falooda vermicelli milk based percursors by referencing the RS i have just mentioned above, which has been removed by persian users without providing any reason, and they keep adding non reliable RS from india today, indianexpress, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Add massive violations of WP:PERSONAL to that as well;

• " (...) by persian users such as Wikaviani, LouisAragon, Oshwah (...)"
• "(...) the users are from persian backgrounds, i feel that as persians, they are trying to change the indian article (...)"

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Also, FYI, this "user" is IP hopping since a long time. Compare IP 175.137.72.188 with this other IP. Exact same geolocation,- same POV, same concerns, not using edit summaries. Pinging Bishonen, who's aware of this. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Thanks for your swift intervention to put an end to the disruption. Take care.---Wikaviani 21:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:67.135.148.177 reported by User: Pinrestop (Blocked)

Page

Doctor Who (series 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

67.135.148.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Doctor Who (series 11)

1. 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882899820 by Seby1541 (talk) (talk) please be constructive"
2. 00:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882899385 by Seby1541 (talk) (talk) please, no sockpuppeting"
3. 00:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882898452 by Esuka (talk) status quo? wiki is always in flux"
4. 00:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882898097 by Esuka (talk) please take it to the talk page"
5. 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882897206 by Alex 21 (talk) Please take it to the talk page rather than edit warring."
6. 00:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896883 by Alex 21 (talk) please stop vandalizing, take it to the talk page"
7. 00:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896714 by Railfan23 (talk) please stop vandalizing"

Comments:

• Blocked 1 week and article semi protected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Ljuvlig reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: blocked)

Page

Accession of Macedonia to NATO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ljuvlig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC) "It's not vandalism, stop saying that, I'm not a vandalist, this picture has no references and is not appropriate, it's graffitti."
2. 12:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883275933 by Resnjari (talk)"
3. 11:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC) "It's not edit war and I have been blocked not fairly, you have misused wiki and tricked the people so they block me."
4. 10:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary picture that doesn't help the context."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor has received 2 recent blocks for the same edit-warring, & was warned again today. David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ljuvlig's behavior via WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons is disruptive to the Misplaced Pages project. The article in question is covered under WP:ARBMAC.Resnjari (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Those 2 recent blocks where made unfairly and manipulative by Resnjari's lead. Stop lying Resnjari, it has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:TENDENTIOUS. It's not neutral with that picture and there is no source that there is widespread Anti-Nato feelings in the article, it's weird how people believe your word when you have no evidence for it. I want to say that me being blocked was unfair and wrong, I'm not a vandalist, I don't think the picture should be there cause it doesn't give the article a neutral account. And I don't see how graffitti is relevant in this case to portray this article. Ljuvlig (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Resnjari should get some warning for the lying and manipulate behaviour he has done to me.Ljuvlig (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest to Ljuvlig to stop editing that article for some time. After reflecting on the issue and gaining experience, they could return to the dispute and seek a stable solution. A good solution would be having two pics on the article, one showing pro-NATO sentiments and one showing anti-NATO sentiments. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, I suggest to Ljuvlig to not make personal attacks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. Clear violation of 3RR. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Yanping Nora Soong reported by User:Doc James (Result: Agreed to revert to status quo ante, no action)

Page: Brugada syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yanping Nora Soong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (Feb 13th 16:10)
2. (Feb 13th 20:00)
3. (Feb 14th 00:55)
4. (Feb 14th 22:28)
5. (Feb 14th 22:34)
6. (Feb 14th 22:39)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Feb 14 22:34)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

So what we have here 6 reverts without gaining consensus on the talk page to valid concerns raised by two editors (myself one of them). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not all reverts. I am adding new material and new sources each time, and it was easier for me to restore the material and then add the sources, because I was making my edits piecewise. Two editors isn't consensus. I would appreciate wider viewpoints on the matter. I am also editing from class. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: But they're partial reverts. You can't do that either, both for legalistic reasons (the policy says "in whole or in part"), and realistic ones (otherwise, one could always insert whatever they wanted to just by tweaking it slightly each time). Please self-revert, and gain consensus on the talk page. Generally when there's a content dispute, consensus is needed for the new material to be added, not for its removal. p.s. I don't understand what "editing from class" means, or what it has to do with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to revert. I also have to pack my laptop soon. I'll defer to uninvolved administrator decisions but I am not sure what self-revert to carry out. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean just revert to the status quo ante, and then discuss. Your edits are all saved in history, and will be easy to get back if you gain consensus on the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you linked me to the preferred revision and I will revert to that? I'll defer to the whatever you think is the preferred, conservative revision because I will not be online again until I get home. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yanping Nora Soong It would be this version

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, if we're doing status quo ante, let's do it right, not incorporating some of Doc James' comments from today. I've reverted to the version from yesterday that was stable for 2 weeks. If some of the intermediate changes are sure to be uncontroversial, they can be re-added, but anything with any chance of having disagreement should be discussed on the talk page. Since YNS agreed to the revert, I'm closing this with no action. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam perfectly reasonable. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

user:Wikaviani, user:LouisAragon user:Oshwah reported by user:175.137.72.188 (result: OP warned)

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.

Page: Falooda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Oshwah (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:

Comments:

These users have reverted my RS in Falooda, i have tried to engage in them in the discussion by leaving a message on their talk page, but these users have not, user:Wikaviani has has used nationalist argument that

Faloodah was invented in Persia more than 2500 years ago, how could the Mughals invent it 2000 years later ? Please check what this Indian paper says about this : "Even the concept of sweetmeats after the main meal was introduced by the Persians. The most common being kulfi and falooda, eaten in tall glasses in Iran. Even jalebi found its way to our hearts from Persia! Sherbet, served during Indian summers, originated in Persia.".

Faloode was introduced by Persians.

The beverage is also of Persian origin. Also, you seem to think that only you can identify what a RS is. Edit-warring against 3 other editors before waiting for the discussion to conclude is not the solution. Best regards.

these assertions are without credible RS, i have tried to make a logical argument and in reply, the user has only inserted nationalistic POV and has not provided credible source, user:Wikaviani, user:LouisAragon have removed my RS from shudhganga without any reasonable explanation, there is also an issue of persian blog post which is irrelevant to the article being used to assert this nationlist POV,

user:LouisAragon user:Oshwah have not even engaged in the discussion depite calling them to state their reasons.

regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment Another report was made about this : . IP user, please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages works primarily with WP:CONSENSUS. So far, you've been reverted by 3 users (the three you reported here), this is far from any consensus. In such cases, it's better to try to solve the dispute constructively and without attacking other users like you did above with me. I'm not a Persian nationalist and the sources i provided on the talk page were Indian papers, not Persian blogs. Best regards.---Wikaviani 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

revert has been made without seeking any consensus, the other two users have made reverts without bringing discussion on the table, all three users clearly are working together with nationalist motivation which can be observed in the comments, and which can be seen in their reluctance to participate in the discussion, otherwise there would have been proper discussion before reverts been made, removal of RS still has not been addressed, as well as non reliable RS persian blog which specifically targets faloodeh of persia and irrelevant to Falooda, user:Oshwah reverted even my talk page message to user:LouisAragon and user:Wikaviani also reverted my talk page message to user:Oshwah, this is pretty evident that all these three members have worked in unison regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Administrator note There is no merit in this report at all. 175.137.72.188: you violated 3RR on 13 Feb, which I will overlook because it is 2 days ago and you have not edit warred since. Please continue the discussion on Talk:Falooda and stop attacking other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

i have not made three reverts, i have only made two reverts, please go back and check again user: Wikaviani is the one who has made three reverts, the other two have made one each which makes five reverts, the three users have tried to revert my editing without proper discussion, and have not engaged in the discussion in the talk page, as i have already stated, that the two users are not interested in the discussion, only one engaged and user is insistent on not giving reason for reverting my RS and imposing persian blog irrelevant source which is about faloodeh, and he has clearly revealed his bias in the discussion, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your reverts: 1, 2, 3. Also, even if we ignore that, when one person is reporting three people, it's almost always the one person who is edit warring. You are the edit warrior in this case, and failure to acknowledge that does not help you. Further arguing that you were not edit warring or that they were will be considered disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Closed OP warned that they were the edit warrior in this case. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

the second one is not a revert, it was edition, i have reported three of them because they have not engaged in the discussion. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Final warning: DROP IT. You were officially the edit warrior in this scenario. Any assessment that is both good-faith and competent would arrive at that conclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:ElHef & User:B dash reported by User:219.79.97.234 (Result: OP blocked)

Page: Talk:The Voice India Kids (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• ElHef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• B dash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/883302063
2. Special:Diff/883305800
3. Special:Diff/883444667

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/883444667

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/883449030

Comments: These users keep closing the edit request without knowing the situation. We have explained many times that we are unable to edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.97.234 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I hope the admins should consider looking at User talk:117.97.142.249 before taking actions. --B dash (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours No, you're edit warring. Someone should really make a template that explains "if you're all alone reverting multiple users, you're the edit warrior." Your reverts include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. At no point have you explained why or how you're unable to edit the page. The first time you even claimed you can't edit was when you were claiming that you already explained it. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring