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

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:48, 6 April 2014 view sourceLockean One (talk \| contribs)608 edits →User:Lockean One reported by User:Finx (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 01:56, 17 January 2025 view source ToBeFree (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators128,050 editsm fixing broken template brackets
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}{{/Header}}]
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
			<!--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 = ~~240~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Baldoz}}
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Isabel Gómez-Bassols}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Softlavender}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- 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. -->

			'''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\|1269468204\|21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# {{diff2\|1269467160\|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	#
			# {{diff2\|1269462212\|20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Fixed discrepancies made by user Lobo151"
	#
	#		#
	#		#
			#
			#

			'''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\|1269466345\|20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers ]"
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff2\|1269467260\|20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording ]"
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Edit-warring over BLP violations and tagging the article as needing better sources to meet BLP: Self-published sources being used in a BLP that we're cleaning up after it was created against a conflict of interest by a new editor. The article is currently up for deletion, but it looks like we've got enough to keep it. Seems like editors are fine with poorly sourced information as long as it verified (and positive in nature?) - so basically NOT, OR(PSTS), NPOV, and BLP are being ignored in order to include the information. --] (]) 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*As far as I understand, making two completely '''''different''''' edits does not constitute 3RR (if I'm wrong please let me know and I'll remember that in the future). Content in each of the two different issues was previously addressed either on the Talk page (as noted in my edit summaries) or addressed (and also previously addressed and explained) thoroughly in the edit summary(ies). (On at least one of the two issues, ] and I have been engaging with the editor on the Talk page, and although Ronz established no consensus and Binksternet and I disagreed with him/her, he made a third deletion of cited non-controversial non-contentious material without establishing consensus, and I informed him that I was going to replace the info per the lengthy Talk page discussion.) ] (]) 05:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} ] ] 21:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	*:This issue isn't 3rr, it is edit-warring against BLP. --] (]) 05:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for three months) ==
	:::Ronz, I feel the need to point out that my cleanup (March 30/31) had policy-backed consensus, and from my perspective you have been the one edit-warring without any consensus and without ever even clearly making an incontrovertible case for your edits. Posting acronyms is not making a case, much less an incontrovertible one, and much less one that has consensus. If you feel the article is in violation of BLP or NPOV, then perhaps it's best to take that up on one of those two boards. Meanwhile, two editors engaged in constructively improving the article and its content happen to have disagreed with you and happen to have disagreed with your edits. ] (]) 06:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Pudukkottai}}
	::::This looks like Ronz is the one edit warring. I just don't understand what he's aiming to accomplish with his templating of the biography after all of its problems were fixed by Softlavender and others. ] (]) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for the ], ]-violating responses. Please feel free to add more in case this needs to go to ANI.
	:::::Focusing on the policies: The article falls under BLP, and poorly sourced information should be immediately removed from BLP articles ("without waiting for discussion" actually.) Such content disputes place "The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material."
	:::::The sources are self-published, so they should be removed immediately. --] (]) 15:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
	'''Result:''' Article protected one week, with the disputed awards being removed (for now). In answer to Softlavender's question, all* reverts within 24 hours are counted toward 3RR. This is explained in ]. ] (]) 03:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Development of Windows XP}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|110.164.115.224}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1269501838\|00:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268811016\|diff=1269371545\|label=Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) to 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269370583\|09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1269371545\|10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

	;Diffs of ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|~~602528374~~\|05:18, 3 ~~April~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)}} "No."		# {{diff2\|1269502083\|00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."
	# {{diff2\|602527064\|05:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Development */ Insert Main article"
	# {{diff2\|602525958\|04:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ / ~~3RR~~ ~~warning~~:		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	# {{diff2\|602527723\|05:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Development of Windows XP */ new section"
	# {{diff2\|602529042\|05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

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

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

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Afghan mujahideen}} <br />
	Article's encyclopedic content was merged into ], remaining article was fancruft and a ] violation. However, an IP editor has persistently reverted. Comments in edit summaries infer ] <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 05:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Boackandwhite}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:''' ;
	*{{AN3\|s}} User has not edited or made any reverts since the warning was given. ] (]) 16:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Chiropractic}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|QuackGuru}}

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

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	# (My apologies, this source was missing from the report. There the editor removes the whole comment again)
	#
	#

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- 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 -->
			Boackandwhite, a new account with fewer than 100 edits, has already racked up an impressive record of disruption, even if this is more due to ] than bad faith. Boackandwhite's talk page is filled with warnings about and
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			At ], Boackandwhite reinstated unsourced material after it was challenged (primarily by myself, but also by other ) <u>five separate times in less than a month</u>, eventually merging a source that plainly fails ] to validate the proposed change (and that's excluding multiple IP edits that cannot be conclusively linked to Boackandwhite). In a talk page thread initiated by Boackandwhite, I attempted to explain why his edit had been contested: However, Boackandwhite stopped replying and instead resumed edit warring, apparently convinced that since the U.S., the most powerful member of the NATO alliance, clearly supported the Afghan mujahideen, that must also mean that NATO as a whole can be considered allied to the mujahideen—no sourcing or verification necessary.
	<!-- 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 -->
	<!-- Maybe weird enough, but the edit war has taken place at the Talk Page -->

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

			:no. i added NATO for his support to gulf war coalition (that included mujaheddin) with operation anchor guardian. ] (]) 09:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	The editor has been reverting / making edits repeatedly to an original quote. I have tried to explain him that he should leave the original quote untouched, and include what he has to say into additional comments.
			::{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} As noted, more about ] than anything else.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	What makes the course of things even more complicated to follow, is that the user hasn't agreed to take the discussion solely at the article Talk Page, but instead has fragmented it to my personal user talk page as well. ] (]) 10:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fadlo R. Khuri}} <br />
	:The editor was told to . But the editor did not stop. This was and the . The editor added and . ] should apply in this case. ] (]) 16:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|94.187.8.87}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::I didn't delete QuackGuru's comments, but I did restore the original post whereas he repeatedly tried to revert / make changes to it afterwards. By ''deleting his comments'', I think the user is pertaining to the following edit: . This was a pure accident though, which I already have explained to him and apologized: . The previous link is directing to my User Talk Page, since the editor is constantly taking part of discussion there out of the ].

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	::In my humble opinion, the editor isn't really paying attention to the main point here, that is his constant reverts / edits on the original post he made. By removing / changing his original posts, it has turned impossible to other contributors in the article to follow up the discussion on sources. His current editing is very aggressive, and he doesn't seem to allow any public discussion on the subject. As a result, he is constantly removing / changing the original posts made.
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ]
	::So far, the other changes he brings up are referring to strong, reliable sources, and therefore it is somewhat obscure what he is trying to say; the other edits are not the subject being discussed here. As far as I know, there hasn't been any problems with those either (one contributor was actually thanking me for my edit in the lead at the talk page). But that's off-topic already. ] (]) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::My but the editor moved my post without stating on the talk page that it was moved from his the talk page. It is not about the sources. It is about the and you are not getting. The . The changes were made on April 1 and the . ] (]) 17:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::::The original post was moved to the article Talk Page, since '''1)''' the post is dealing with the article, and '''2)''' the post is dealing with '''changes that QuackGuru has made to the article'''. Therefore I came into conclusion that under ] the post belongs to the article Talk Page. WP:MULTI states: ''If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and linking to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why.'' This has been clearly stated in the edit summary and explained as well. Still the editor has continuously kept removing / editing the original post, since according to his own words ''he hasn't given me permission to move or cite it'' or ''he isn't interested.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	::::Anyway, I recovered QuackGuru's post on my Talk Page since he got so upset about it. Therefore, I told to QuackGuru to regard his post at the ] as ''direct citation'' instead. It doesn't matter whether it's moved under WP:MULTI, or if it is a direct citation: in neither situation the editor should not make edits to the post. Otherwise the other contributors in the article find it impossible to follow the debate on the sources used, where QuackGuru is pushing very aggressively his own opinion. I think the other contributors should be given a chance to participate the discussion as well, so a final consesus can be reached. The edit warring here has occured since QuackGuru haven't accept his changes to be discussed publicly.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	::::'''The latest demonstration''' of QuackGuru's edit warring occured today (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=602606007) where he reverted the made changes again. He is still preaching the same sermon about the sources ''failing'', even it has been already discussed at the Talk Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chiropractic#Mass_original_research_in_the_lead; 2nd post) and shown that it is not the case. His latest revert today makes it pretty hard to understand his claim that ''it is not about the sources''. When we look at his latest revert, we can see that it is very well about the sources.
			This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine ] concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ] (]) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|p\|three days}} by {{u\|Randykitty}} ] (]) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
	::::So far QuackGuru has offered as his defence statements like: ''the change was also not a good summary of a body'' and that ''the text failed''. In my humble opinions, those are his very own opinions, and I don't really see how they are connected to the actual problem: his repetitious reverting. ] (]) 11:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::::You have ignored my comments on the talk page. It has been shown that the sources failed V and you did add orginal research to the lede. ] (]) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations}}
	"Studies on chiropractic, moreover on its principle intervention spinal manipulation, have found it to be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for many cases of lower back pain."''''''
	:This is not a summary of the body at all and the sentence is .

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|46.217.186.173}}
	"However, as with most medical interventions, there are reports of mild to serious ], with serious or fatal ] in rare cases."''''''

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* {{cite journal\|last=Rubinstein\|first=SM\|coauthors=Terwee CB, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW\|title=Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review\|journal=Spine (Phila Pa 1976)\|date=2013 Feb 1\|series=38\|issue=3\|pages=E158-77\|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22972127\|accessdate=1 April 2014}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{cite journal\|last=Rubinstein\|first=SM\|coauthors=van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW\|title=Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain\|date=NaN\|doi=10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2}}
			# {{diff2\|1269599524\|13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:References two and three do not very the claim. Hence, . The accessdate date was on . This looks like an . You can read the body of the article and you can see the lede does not summarise the body. See the ] for example. ] (]) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269595946\|12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269506198\|01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269480789\|22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1269469278\|21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) FASISM TOWARDS MACEDONIA"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*'''Comment''': First of all, it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on here because of all the editorializing and irrelevant comments in here. Content disputes on the article are not to be discussed and worked out here. That's what the talk page is for. Second, it's bad form to edit or refactor your own comments after people have read and replied to them. Third, it's bad form to move someone else's comments without making it clear that you are quoting them and where the original comment was posted. Forth, no one has to ask your permission to quote or repeat your comments anywhere on Misplaced Pages, as long as there is proper attribution per the license you agree to every time you click "Save page". Now can we get back to improving articles? --] (]) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269596351\|12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	'''Result:''' Both editors warned. Misplaced Pages is ]. Misplaced Pages expects that editors will show a spirit of good-faith cooperation on talk pages, even when they disagree. ] provides that "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." I'm notifying ] and ] of the discretionary sanctions under ]; QG is already notified. If problems continue, one or both editors may be restricted from modifying anyone else's comments on a talk page. See also the advice of admin ] to both parties above. ] (]) 23:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
	:
	: Half an hour isn't really time for others to information and I think this has been closed too quickly - edit-conflicting what I was posting below:
	: This much is obvious: Jayaguru-Shishya is not a new editor.
	:* Nevertheless he posted a comment made by QuackGuru on his talk page onto the talk page of Acupuncture {{diff2\|602411534\|deceptively giving the impression that QG had commented there}}.
	:* In all seriousness, I warned Jayaguru-Shishya that {{diff2\|602771016\|the community does not look favourably on such edits}}.
	:* Today, Jayaguru-Shishya has twice reverted {{diff2\|602763537}}, {{diff2\|602774085}} without any summary to explain the reverts. The effect was to re-insert a section into Acupuncture that is strongly disputed at ]. Jayaguru-Shishya has made no attempt to engage in that debate.
	:* I warned Jayaguru-Shishya that {{diff2\|602781493\|he should engage on the talk page, not edit war, pointing out that three reverts is not an entitlement}}. {{u\|Enric Naval}} also {{diff2\|602785190\|reinforced that point}}.
	:* Jayaguru-Shishya has now deleted both my and Enric's comments on his behaviour from his talk page and {{diff2\|602786717\|posted them on Talk:Acupuncture}} which gives the impression that Enric's post was made there. That is purely disruptive editing. The article talk page is not the place to discuss Jayaguru-Shishya's behaviour and I believe that he's simply ] to build an encyclopedia.
	: I am asking that he be blocked until he comes to understand what is acceptable behaviour on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 23:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

	:: "Half an hour"? It was more than 24 hours after Jayaguru-Shishya filed this that I commented, and I was the first admin to do so. Neither party has clean hands here and the edit warring noticeboard isn't for solving more complex content disputes or behavioral problems. If you feel there is a more in-depth problem, it would be more appropriate to pursue dispute resolution or RFC/U as appropriate. Problems from these long-term contentious content areas have a habit of spilling over into all kinds of noticeboards, but this is not the appropriate venue. --] (]) 11:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	::: Never mind, I see he was blocked by another admin anyway. --] (]) 11:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	:::: My apologies, I obviously had a "brain-fart" and don't seem to be able to tell the third of April from the fourth. QuackGuru understands the warning and that he must not edit-war. I am pleased that Jayaguru-Shishya has now responded very positively with assurances that he now understands the intent of our edit-warring policies, and hopefully this matter is now concluded. Thanks --] (]) 15:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Persistent edit warring. ] (]) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			*{{AN3\|p}} ] ] 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mufaddal Saifuddin}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Summichum}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739)}}
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Asafviki}}
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# (cur \| prev) 12:21, March 26, 2014‎ Summichum (talk \| contribs)‎ . . (14,267 bytes) (-5,804)‎ . . (reference to the claimants own website are biased primary sources , Muffadal is still a claimant and nass is disputed , maintain NPOV)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1269613200\|14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
			# {{diff2\|1269609369\|14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
			# {{diff2\|1269569554\|09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Diffs of the user's reverts:Disruptive editing which was reverted by me.
			# {{diff2\|1269613702\|14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring."
	(cur \| prev) 15:59, March 23, 2014‎ Rukn950 (talk \| contribs)‎ m . . (31,841 bytes) (-3,493)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Summichum (talk) to last revision by Mufaddalqn. (TW))
	(cur \| prev) 14:21, March 23, 2014‎ Summichum (talk \| contribs)‎ . . (35,334 bytes) (+3,493)‎ . . (Added differences between dawoodi bohra and other sects and views from leading Muslim news reports (edited with ProveIt)) (thank)

	~~Diff~~ of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:~~#REDIRECT ]~~		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


	(cur \| prev) 20:08, April 3, 2014‎ Summichum (talk \| contribs)‎ . . (171,338 bytes) (-905)‎ . . (→‎Correction section-wise!) (undo \| thank)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:#REDIRECT ]

	<u>Comments:</u~~> <br /~~>		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>

			Also LOUT socking with ]. --<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">]--]</sup> 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	He has been flooding my talk page with template and undoing my edit and deletion from my talk pages. he is mentally harassing me.I am truly frustrated by this user summichum
			:{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. ] (]) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	he was blocked twice before and immediately started edit war after being released from block.as shown above and unsuccessfully attempted to block me. Now he is on to harassment.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	#REDIRECT ]
	<blockquote>Template war?
	Hello, I'm Anup. I noticed that you recently have been flooding templates on a regular editor, Rukn950. I'd assume good faith and would let you know that we do no template regulars. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
	</blockquote>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|SmartLynx Airlines Estonia}}
	] (]) 21:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|TG-article}}
	** this is a false allegation, I had posted templates to assume good faith of editors as he had made personal attacks on me and repeatedly accusing me of getting me blocked. Hence I posted the templates to make him understand the policies he is violating. Also this is a false edit war report and this user has conflict of interest and wants to use wiki as promotional tool to promote his religious POV as can be verified by a third party ]. All this is being discussed at length on ] both the users have added verifiably wrong information which was what i had reverted and I got blocked . this is why I was the first one to invite a trusted third party for intervention as I saw the two editors md.et , rukn had filled the entire Mufaddal article with BIASED POV. which both the admin and ] acknowledged and removed. These users md.et and rukn also got another good faith editor ] blocked for the same reason. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	The good faith edit which summichum claims;I have given reference above, he completely neglected discussion and blanked out the edit painstakingly done by me and other editors. He is treating Biography article as propaganda. you can clearly see that from history. what summichum claims wrong information and Biased POV( which clearly shows his POV) has been cited by reputed newspapers and registered organization. What about his being flooding my talkpages with template ( refer history ) and reverting MY talkpages? and where have I ever made personal attact? Infact It was because of courtesy assuming good faith, I had not reported him earlier and had only warned him.] (]) 05:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Refer above ''Template war?'' good faith comment by ].] (]) 05:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269668652\|20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"
			# {{diff2\|1269664490\|19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Accidents and incidents */"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
			# {{diff2\|1269638908\|17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|List of Pinky and the Brain episodes}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|2601:C:B80:779:F135:18C:A457:C2C2}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|602661284\|01:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|602661654\|01:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Season 4: 1998 */"
	# {{diff2\|602662463\|01:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Season 4: 1998 */"

			Also edit warring at ], ], ] and ]. User has been told to discuss edits on talk pages on multiple occasions, and seemingly refuses to do so. ] (]) 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|602661174\|01:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Notice: Excessive addition of redlinks or repeated blue links on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|602662991\|01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Final warning notice on ]. (])"

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wolf Man (2025 film)}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|190.201.157.28}}
	User has been repeatedly adding ] to multiple articles (such as the one cited above, in addition to ], ], ], among numerous other ones; see user contribution), engaging in edit war in the course, is unresponsive to multiple attempts to discussion on their talk page up to and including a final warning, and is rapidly editing many pages unproductively. ] (]) 01:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|1/3 day}} While edit-warring and indeed disruptive, this isn't a big issue, and it's apparently done in good faith. In the interests of facilitating cleanup, I've blocked the IP address, but for only eight hours. It's a ] IP address, so the chances are miniscule of the user being awake continuously until the end of the block — it's 11:30PM here in the eastern US, and it will be 4:30AM in the far western US at the end of the block. ] (]) 03:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] has a complaint about content of a section of article ] and has for more than a year insisted on disfiguring the section with a tag disputing factual accuracy. Other users have patiently attempted to resolve the difference of opinion via the article's ], to no avail. The user declines to employ regular editing practice to make changes, but seems to want other editors to restore previous disputed content. The user has repeatedly reverted attempts to remove the disruptive tag. The latest instance of the long-term edit warring is The article is an important one, frequently consulted worldwide, and the constant presence of an unwarranted fact tag tends to bring Misplaced Pages's methods into question together with the article and bona fide editors. ] (]) 02:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269704227\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	*'''Comment''': the situation over there appears to be a legitimate discussion, though given that it has dragged on for a while, the original problem seems to have been forgotten and at present it is unclear to someone outside the fight over if there is a content dispute or if there is merely a spat over sourcing and formatting. I do not think this is actually edit-warring and as the article is not a GAN or FAC, a section tag is not a "disfigurement," particularly when the tag has been there since 2012 and one other editor besides Andy seems to be OK with keeping it there. I have posted as a more-or-less neutral party (in that I have asked Andy's help on template issues but OTOH have never edited the article and am not active on Oz topics; I believe I can view this issue fairly) in an attempt to see if I can sort out exactly what the problem is. So please allow this to just simmer over at article talk. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269703995\|23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	::It's been simmering since 3 December 2012. In that time the {{tl\|disputed}} tag has been removed several times by various editors, after Pigsonthewing has been absent from discussion, usually for a long time. Each time though, Pigsonthewing has restored it, restarting discussion, but without any progress as Pigsonthewing refuses to respond after a few posts. --] (]) 05:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269673354\|20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Reception */"
	*{{AN3\|d}}. {{U\|Bjenks}}, next time fill out a proper report with diffs. If there's anything worse than a fast-moving edit war over tags, it's a very slow edit war over tags. Find some other way to resolve it than coming here.--] (]) 11:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269640157\|17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
			# {{diff2\|1269704229\|23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|City of David}}
			# No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Danielcohn}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Previous version reverted to:
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected for a month) ==
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|602623475\|19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""Occupied enemy territory" is clearly POV. And even from that POV, building without a permit is still illegal, just like crossing with red light. Again, take it to the talk page"
	# {{diff2\|602620080\|19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 601522047 by ] (]) no sources are reported, only statements by politicians. Please take up in Talk page rather than edit war"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Until Dawn (film)}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	None required: "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." ] (]) 06:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	See ] - this article is under a 1RR restriction. I warned him in the past for edit warring with basically the same edits, and at that time he was obviously editing as {{user\|134.191.232.71}} ] (]) 06:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269723705\|01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
	*{{AN3\|b}} Danielcohn for 48 hours per ]. I blocked the IP for one year as a proxy server.--] (]) 11:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1269722106\|01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1269715862\|00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269684805\|diff=1269714293\|label=Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269714124\|00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Enough with the vandalism already"
			## {{diff2\|1269714293\|00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"

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

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...

			Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: ].
	Previous version reverted to:

			The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: ]
	<!-- 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:
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602693562&diffonly=1
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602684222&diffonly=1
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602683473&diffonly=1
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602681550&diffonly=1
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602677288&diffonly=1
	#https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=602670231&diffonly=1

			Regards, — ] ] 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			:{{AN3\|p}} for one month by {{noping\|ToBeFree}} ] (]) 21:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporter blocked 2 weeks) ==
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Kajari}} <br />
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Adrikshit}}


			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*{{AN3\|n}}. {{U\|Wuerzele}}, next time use real diffs, not unclickable numbers. Also, you were required to notify the reported user; I did so for you. Both you and {{U\|Fleetham}} have violated ], and I'm tempted to block both of you. However, I will wait to see if Fleetham wants to comment, which probably means I won't take any action in the near-term, although another administrator may choose to do so.--] (]) 11:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	], thank you for looking at my report so quickly.
			#
	*Re Real vs unclickable diff numbers: I didnt know they needed to be clickable, it didnt say this in the instructions. I've seen diffs only in edit summaries, where they arent clickable. Sorry, I've never done this before.
			#
	*Re notifying reported user: I have done this too, I warned him on his talkpage, putting things in larger context of at least 15 other complaints n the last 6 months, but he deleted the post.
			#
	*Re tempted to block me/ having violated ]: Please tell me how. My understanding is violation is more than 3 R's - am I wrong? I defended my edit by reverting Fleethams reverts 3x, which is not ideal. Fleetham violated 3R's by reverting me 4x, reverted another user twice in the same 24h, to the total of 6 reversals. Fleetham reverted a) after I had proposed an edit on the talk page, and b)put a compromise of the proposal in the article. he cited flat out "lack of consensus on talk page" in his reversal summary every time without ever replying to my edit.
			#

	This user has long standing, ongoing problems regarding ownership, disruptive and confusing edits, with citation overkill, refusal to engage in sincere, productive conversation with others, a bias which numerous editors remarked upon over time, (on ] the criminal intent), talking to the hand , abusing Misplaced Pages policies since at least 2011, not an isolated incident of this user.

	After repeated wholesale reverts, removing content without comment, avoiding ], Fleetham recently changed his tactic: He will now pseudo-engage. After reverts, he sneakily posts on the talk page without addressing me. Unless I make a special effort, I may not see his post on ], which has become a djungle crowded with messages. He waits briefly and when none replies, he will say his talk point is unopposed, and if by chance one person sides with him he calls it consensus. Anotehr tactic is he repeatedly asks me the same question and insists, that he doesn’t "understand a thing" of my explanation, while no other editor else has voiced this. In good faith, one tries to explain again, but he stubbornly insists he doesnt understand or somethingis worse but not saying why. This makes him look good at first or on casual review by someone that doesn’t delve deeply into the matter. Fleetham ''looks'' engaged by insisting that he still doesn’t understand, but is fake, shows no sign of trying to really work, is no genuine effort to understand the explanation. He does this until he wears one down, until one doesn’t respond, or until one walks away. He says in the edit summary, (not the talkpage) that his view is “unopposed”, that the other user isn’t engaging, or not building consensus. Thus Fleetham manufactures evidence against a good faith editor, to justify his disruptive behavior. This is vicious.

	Since 2-28-14 I have begged Fleetham numerous times not to use edit summaries to shortcut discussion on the talk page. I read today on Fleetham’s talk page that 3 other editors, ] ] and ] have warned him of using misleading edit summaries too, to ] which is when I realized, that this is what Fleetham does. He does this to immunize himself from criticism and to either justify reverts or avoid counting reverts as reverts. This is dysfunctional.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	On this admin page today, I discovered, that one can look up past blocks of users: In 2011 Fleetham was blocked , first 31 h, then 48 h, then 1month twice, then 3 months. There were 4 Misplaced Pages Administrators' noticeboard incidents, 2 of them with complaints like mine and one \| /Edit warring edit warring disputes]].
	He does not have a clean record. Please consider this in your opinion.

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	In summary: Editing Bitcoin daily for the last 42 days, I have observed how Fleetham at first bites new editors, with wholesale undiscussed, controversial deletions, disguised or open reverts, poisoning the atmosphere. There are at least 15 user comments in less than 6 months on complaining about the same thing, likely an underestimate, because numerous others remained silent, or walked away from Bitcoin, including myself, because we want to stay on the subject, and not argue. Please check these user comments out before making a decision.--] (]) 03:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	:{{U\|Wuerzele}}, it's hard for me to wade through the wall of text above, including 3-year old blocking history, issues stemming from February, and issues other editors supposedly have with Fleetham's contributions that are also relatively old. I'll just address two points. First, you notified Fleetham of edit warring. You did ''not'' notify them of the filing of this report. The instructions at the top of the page state that you are required to do that. Second, you reverted four times. You're probably not counting your edit at 4:49 UTC as a revert but if you read the policy, you'll see that it is because you removed some material from the article and changed some other material. Thus, although I have the discretion to block just one of you even if both violated ], I doubt that in this instance I would do so.--] (]) 16:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	::First, yes I was edit warring. Second, I've repeatedly asked Wuerzele to read and abide by ]. Third, the issue in question was a proposed change where consensus was achieved, but Wuerzele went ahead and reverted it back to his version. See ]. I suggest a change, another editor says, "good, I think it's clearer now," and Wuerzele replies, " has been a WP:status quo explaining blockchain. It stays." I don't think that justifies my behavior, and there are certainly better ways to handle the situation. ] (]) 20:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Barwani}}
			{{AN3\|nb\|two weeks}} by {{noping\|ToBeFree}} ] (]) 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|GOVINDKRISHNA GKM}}

			:I have also added a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. ] (]) 21:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Previous version reverted to:
			::And Aman has been alerted to contentious topics, too. ] (]) 21:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result:indefinitely partially blocked) ==
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|602711226\|11:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Colleges */"
	# {{diff2\|602559007\|11:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Trivia */"
	# {{diff2\|602555931\|10:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Trivia */"
	# {{diff2\|602550988\|09:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Trivia */"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Killing_of_Wong_Chik_Yeok}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|602656348\|00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Janessian}}
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			# {{diff\|oldid=1269356091\|diff=1269786107\|label=Consecutive edits made from 11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1269785771\|11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Posting the photo of a deceased tagged to such an intense tragic story would greatly hurt the family. Imagine this is your daughter mug shot, killed by her husband, with her summarised tragic story plastered for the world to see. All I did was to remove her picture and you youngsters spare no effort in reverting it."
			## {{diff2\|1269786107\|11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} "This man, worked hard his whole life, faithful his entire life, fell ill to a mental illness, does not deserve to have his face tagged to a summarised wrong version of the story for the entire world to see. Imagine this is your brother, who spent his old age in agony. Are you sure this is the right thing to do? What good does it serve to publish pictures of an old case other than to serve what grandiose ideology?"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Exceeded 3RR after warning. ] ] 11:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}}.--] (]) 11:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Tumblr}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Wrightfront}}

	;Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|602721038\|13:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 602719674 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|602707713\|10:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 602707543 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|602702000\|09:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "I've seen YouTube and WIKI's used as sources on here before. Stop undoing this just because you're a butthurt Tumblr fanboy. No offence but that's kinda what I'm getting from this right now."
	# {{diff2\|602627071\|20:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Not biased. I never stated any of this as fact. It's criticisms people have given to the website. By your logic, listing the criticisms given to, say, Jeremy Clarkson by quote is biased. I never stated any of it as opinion, if you would notice."
	# {{diff2\|602616509\|18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""

			User appears to be slow edit warring at this point. JBW has already banned them once for edit warring. ] (]) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|602726526\|14:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			:I would also point out that before their first ban for edit warring @] was making comments with a seeming intent to intimidate users that reverted his edits. ] (]) 19:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			:: {{u\|Isabelle Belato}} has indefinitely partially blocked Janessian from the ] article. ] (]) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours from editing articles) ==
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Capitalism}} <br />
	I left a note on his talk page recently, but then I saw that he already ignored two warnings about edit warring, so I doubt he'll listen to this one. ] (]) 14:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Free market}} <br />
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}.--] (]) 21:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Extreme poverty}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Distribution of wealth}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Poverty reduction}} <br />
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Trickle-down economics}} <br />

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

			POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there.
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Yom Kippur War}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Ali Osama}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
	# {{diff2\|602582633\|14:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
			#
	# {{diff2\|602616588\|18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
			#
	# {{diff2\|602624135\|19:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
			#
	# {{diff2\|602643973\|22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|602706644\|10:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 602691592 by ] (])"
	# {{diff2\|602726617\|14:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}} "They keep un-editing it while i have put refs. and reason, their sources are completely wrong."

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|602646125\|22:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|602647602\|22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)}} "/* Infobox results edit war - yet again. */ new section"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Despite engaging on the article talk page and their user talk page, asking them for dialogue, and making them aware that this is a 1RR article, the user has reverted several more times. (] ]) 19:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. I would have blocked them for a shorter duration and not per ] if it hadn't been for the edits themselves, which were distinctly troubling. In their first revert, they changed the "result" from an Israeli victory to an Arab victory but retained all the sources (many) that supported the Israeli victory. In their second revert, they again changed the result, but this time, they removed all of the sources without adding any sources in support of the changed result. The next three reverts were all the same. They removed the old sources and added two in support of their change. One was an unreliable source that was a puff piece about glorious Egypt. The second was better, although I am not familiar enough with these sources to know how reliable it is or whether it was reasonable to cite to it. For those reasons, I blocked for a week (longer than normal for a first block) and did it subject to the discretionary sanctions. As an aside, {{U\|Hohum}}, if you want to notify the user of the 1RR restriction (beyond what's already on the talk page and in the article edit notice), the best would be to do so on the user's talk page. If you want to do it on the article talk page, second best would then be to notify the user on their talk page of the discussion on the article talk page. Third best is what I think you tried to do, which was to notify the user through the ]. However, the standard template, {{T1\|User}}, doesn't notify the user. You have to use one of the other templates for this purpose, e.g., {{Tl\|U}} or {{Tl\|ping}}.--] (]) 22:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Liz Wahl}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|68.33.31.74}}

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

			This is an ad hominem attack: "POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there." I would appreciate if Avatar317 would please stop with the ad hominem attacks in the edit summaries. They violate ].
	Previous version reverted to:

			I stand by most of my insertions of the chart:
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			I agree with some of Avatar317's removals. Other removals seemed to be stalking to see where I added the chart. The regular editors of articles are capable of making up their own minds.
	<!-- 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:

			I addressed Avatar317's points in my edit summaries. But he sometimes did not address my points in his 2nd reversions.
	<!-- 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:

			I would appreciate not being stalked. And we can always go to the talk page for the articles he regularly edits. --] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			:Every article I reverted you on was on my Watchlist. I did not (yet) go through the list of your edits other than to count them.
	This has been going on for a few days already. Aparently it's the same person editing from first her nick and now from several IPs. Please revert it to the pre-war condition. Thank you. ] (]) 22:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
			:You've been around long enough that you should know that per ] "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."; so you COULD have started discussions rather than continuing to push that content into all those articles.
	*{{AN3\|p}} (semi) for three days.--] (]) 00:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
			:Which article did you NOT revert my removal? I don't see even one. ---''']]''' 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			::]. And in ] you changed the location which I don't mind.
	== ] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 72hrs ) ==
			::And you '''could''' have addressed my points in your 2nd edit summary instead of doing a kneejerk 2nd reversion in some cases without directly addressing my points. That would save some time before going to the talk page.

			::And please see ] if you are thinking of following me around to the other articles where the chart is posted. --] (]) 00:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Khojaly Massacre}} <br />
			:::All of your "points" are Original Research ] based on your BELIEF that the chart is relevant to the 36 articles you added it to. Again: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Urartu TH}}
			:::And if you post the same content into many articles, I will revert those which are inappropriate the same way I would go over a new editor's edits who adds spam to many articles. In case you can't tell, I have an interest in Economics, and keeping extraneous content out of Misplaced Pages. Hounding would be following you to articles OTHER than ones I have an interest in. ---''']]''' 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} from editing articles. ] applies. ] (]) 01:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	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:
	The user was warned about ], which considers edit warring harmful: , and he is well aware of 3RR because he himself provided a link to ] in his edit summary.

	<!-- 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 />
	This user made 4 rvs in 24 h, which is a clear violation of 3RR. He adds a questionable and unsourced interpretation of a source into the lead, despite objections of other editors. ]] 08:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

	Since this is an arbitration covered area, I have also reported it to ]. Maybe it is worth to keep the discussion to one place, so any advise on that will be appreciated. ]] 08:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

	I stand by my edits. In fact, the user initiating this matter is the one that began the back and forth of edits as can be seen in the history of the article. I did not change the substance of the sentence in question, as can be seen. I merely clarified the language. User Grandmaster was warned about not engaging in an editwar. In the ] talk page, user Grandmaster made contentions about a particular word used in the sentence. The word is a valid use per the source cited. I asked Grandmaster to take the issue to community at a ] if necessary but they refuses. The user is attempting to a POV versions of events in a highly contentious article.--] (]) 09:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|b\|72 hours}} "Standing by my edits" or not, ] is not an exception to the ]. This type of battleground editing led to a block a mere 3 weeks ago, hence the escalation <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 10:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fort Lee lane closure scandal}}<br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Wondering55 }}

	<!-- 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: also user talk page:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	User has been edit-warring to enforce his will in this article, and attempts by two different users (myself and Cwobeel) to ameliorate the situation have not borne fruit. ] (]) 16:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}}.--] (]) 18:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:September 11 attacks}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Dornicke}}

	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	#
	#
	#

	Notified:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Not much to add here. Since they came back after over a year hiatus. The editor's work seems to have a singular ideological motivation. ] (]) 20:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

	A talk page threat was hatted due to poor, deteriorating discussion. Dornicke has reverted 8 times within a 48-hour window, despite being repeatedly warned. Four individual users (myself, ], ], and ]) have reverted him, with almost all of them having a clear reason in the edit summary. In contrast, Dornicke has ceased providing edit summaries and is simply reverting persistently. '''] ]''' 20:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

	::The warning in my page reads: ''If you find yourself in an editing dispute, '''use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes'''; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.''
	::You are reverting criticism related to whitewashing in the article in the talk page. Not a single valid reason for censoring it has been provided. The project rules do not support this kind of censorship. It's bad enough that a group of editors believe to the the owners of the article and persistently revert any change in the text. But now you want to CENSOR valid criticism towards the article in the talk page itself? That's more than a very bad taste joke. It's vandalism. Talk about "ideological motivation"... ] (]) 20:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	::As for ''"The editor's work seems to have a singular ideological motivation''", just look for my contributions, in this project, and also in the Portuguese (including the featured articles I wrote, almost all of them about art), the French, the Italian, and the Spanish wikipedias. And also for the 6,000 images I've uploaded/donated to Wikimedia Commons. The first reversion by Mongo didn't even include a reason. That's because he simply didn't know how to justify such an absurd action as deleting a discussion simply because he didn't like the way it was going... and it's really funny to see editors that were not even involved in the discussion running here to ask for "punishment". Why? No arguments to defend your point of view, so nobody must see the criticism in the talk page? LOL indeed! ] (]) 21:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}.--] (]) 00:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Crimean status referendum, 2014}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Volunteer Marek}}

	<!-- 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: by {{userlinks\|Petr Matas}}

	<!-- 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:
	* by {{userlinks\|Volunteer Marek}}
	** by {{userlinks\|Petr Matas}}
	* by {{userlinks\|My very best wishes}}
	** by {{userlinks\|Moscow Connection}}
	* by {{userlinks\|Volunteer Marek}}
	** by {{userlinks\|Petr Matas}}
	* by {{userlinks\|Volunteer Marek}}
	** by {{userlinks\|Moscow Connection}}
	* by {{userlinks\|Number 57}}
	** by {{userlinks\|Moscow Connection}}
	* by {{userlinks\|Volunteer Marek}}


	<!-- 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:
	*{{AN3\|d}}. First, {{U\|Petr Matas}}, you include a revert going back to April 1 and yet fail to note that VM has not violated ]. If I'm going to block VM for slow edit warring, I would block you too as you've hardly been blameless. Second, you include in your list of reverts a revert by ''another'' user. Just because another editor agrees with VM's revert doesn't mean that other editor is reverting on behalf of VM. Finally, you failed to notify VM of this report as you're ''required'' to do. I ''do'' suggest that the editors discuss more and edit the article less. Remember, this article is subject to disretionary sanctions.--] (]) 01:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
	*: {{U\|Bbb23}}, let me apologize for my mistakes, I agree with all your reproaches. 1) I confused notice with warning. 2) I know that 3RR was not violated and I was probably too succinct. However, I feel that an edit war is occuring and I tried to document the entire war involving multiple users including myself. I thought that it was obvious from the list including the user names. Still, VM refuses to give detailed explanations of his edits as being told in the talk. From ] I got a perception that this is the place where to go. Isn't there any policy for enforcing ] by restoring status quo ante until the dispute is resolved? — ] 05:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

	== Edit warring on ] ==

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Mike Scott (sheriff)}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Niteshift36}}

	<!-- 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 />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] (]) 05:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Libertarianism}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Lockean One}}

	<!-- 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: (which this editor then on my own talk page)

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (it's quite literally all over the talk page for the last several months, although this user has been removing or collapsing/hiding comments he doesn't like -- the latest tactic has been to accuse '''everyone else''' of being the disruptive/disrespectful ones)

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

	First of all, I'm sorry, but this is getting pretty frustrating. We've had little help from administrators so far and it's pretty absurd how long this has gone on. Lockean One's talk page is a graveyard for notices about edit warring and disruptive editing. This is literally all that this account does. There are many users who can attest to this editor being a disruptive edit warrior who just tries to rewrite the same article like some right-wing political pamphlet over and over and over again. Please see these other administrators' noticeboard incidents for background:

	#

	#

	#

	Can you please do something about this instead of just locking the article down? ] (]) 06:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

	:If an admin has any questions of me please let me know. Otherwise, I see no need to address all of the falsehoods above. ] (]) 06:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:56, 17 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:190.201.157.28 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Page protected for a month)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

Page protected for one month by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Adrikshit reported by User:Aman8188 (Result: Reporter blocked 2 weeks)

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:
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of two weeks by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have also added a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And Aman has been alerted to contentious topics, too. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Janessian reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result:indefinitely partially blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Posting the photo of a deceased tagged to such an intense tragic story would greatly hurt the family. Imagine this is your daughter mug shot, killed by her husband, with her summarised tragic story plastered for the world to see. All I did was to remove her picture and you youngsters spare no effort in reverting it."
2. 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "This man, worked hard his whole life, faithful his entire life, fell ill to a mental illness, does not deserve to have his face tagged to a summarised wrong version of the story for the entire world to see. Imagine this is your brother, who spent his old age in agony. Are you sure this is the right thing to do? What good does it serve to publish pictures of an old case other than to serve what grandiose ideology?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be slow edit warring at this point. JBW has already banned them once for edit warring. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also point out that before their first ban for edit warring @Janessian was making comments with a seeming intent to intimidate users that reverted his edits. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato has indefinitely partially blocked Janessian from the Killing of Wong Chik Yeok article. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: Blocked 24 hours from editing articles)

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

POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there.

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:

This is an ad hominem attack: "POV pushing: added the EXACT same graph of (historical US minimum wage) to 36 articles and edit-warring to keep it there." I would appreciate if Avatar317 would please stop with the ad hominem attacks in the edit summaries. They violate WP:NPA.

I stand by most of my insertions of the chart:

Commons:File:US federal minimum wage if it had kept pace with productivity. Also, the real minimum wage.png

I agree with some of Avatar317's removals. Other removals seemed to be stalking to see where I added the chart. The regular editors of articles are capable of making up their own minds.

I addressed Avatar317's points in my edit summaries. But he sometimes did not address my points in his 2nd reversions.

I would appreciate not being stalked. And we can always go to the talk page for the articles he regularly edits. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Every article I reverted you on was on my Watchlist. I did not (yet) go through the list of your edits other than to count them.

You've been around long enough that you should know that per WP:ONUS "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."; so you COULD have started discussions rather than continuing to push that content into all those articles.

Which article did you NOT revert my removal? I don't see even one. ---Avatar317 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Economic liberalization. And in Minimum wage in the United States you changed the location which I don't mind.

And you could have addressed my points in your 2nd edit summary instead of doing a kneejerk 2nd reversion in some cases without directly addressing my points. That would save some time before going to the talk page.

And please see Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding if you are thinking of following me around to the other articles where the chart is posted. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

All of your "points" are Original Research WP:OR based on your BELIEF that the chart is relevant to the 36 articles you added it to. Again: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

And if you post the same content into many articles, I will revert those which are inappropriate the same way I would go over a new editor's edits who adds spam to many articles. In case you can't tell, I have an interest in Economics, and keeping extraneous content out of Misplaced Pages. Hounding would be following you to articles OTHER than ones I have an interest in. ---Avatar317 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours from editing articles. WP:ONUS applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: