Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive31--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
<!--{{adminbacklog}}-->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
==Violations==
Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:12h)===
] violation on
{{Article|List of very tall men}}. {{3RRV|RCS}}:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
*
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_very_tall_men&diff=101831402&oldid=101831327 18:32, 19 January 2007 RCS
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
There may have been a lot more than this that I missed
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
* Diff of 3RR warning:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
Sorry if my report was formatted incorrectly. I don't normally report people on this board. Subject was about 3RR policy. <s>Although I'm not sure if he's considered "new,"</s> he clearly read my warning (and repsonded to it on my talk page), and continued reverting.--] 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:Looking at his contriubtions, it's clear RCS is not a new user and should have been well aware of 3RR prior to my warning.--] 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
::Reply : ] popped up in the middle of a conflict and took party for the wrong side. If you look at the history of the page, you'll see that some IP's (later appearing under an username) just don't want the 6ft 4 section to be kept deleted as it was for good reason for several days already. I don't know what's on ]'s mind, but he certainly ain't an honest broker. ] 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I did not want to block at this juncture, but RCS continues disruption by revert-warring. The duration of the block is 12 hours. — ] 09:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::No, i did '''not''' continue (is warring ?), but obviously Nick is either plain inept or plain dishonest. What a laughable administrator you are, anyway ! With people like you ruling , Musharraf or his successor will have his way. Okay, i admit this is harsh. Cheers ] 08:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- Violations reports go here -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
===] reported by ] (Result: warning)===
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
] violation on
:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Article|Haut-Rhin}}. {{3RRV|Aquarelle}}:
::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
*
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
-->
* No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Misplaced Pages policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of ]
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at ]. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --] 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:My reversions were to the previously established version which came before ]'s controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --] 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
# {{diff2|1268002110|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::The fact you were waiting for 24 hours to pass does not negate the accusation of edit warring. 24-hours is a guideline, not a hard rule, trying to argue that edits fall just outside or inside a 24-hr window is wikilawyering. --] 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
*'''Warning'''. I'll issued Aquarelle a warning. Let's leave it there. ] 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
===] reported by ] (Result: warning)===
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
] violation on
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
{{Article|Moselle}}. {{3RRV|Aquarelle}}:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
* Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
*
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!--
#
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
#
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
#
-->
#
* No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Misplaced Pages policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of ] as the user reverts to French when he is upset, edits almost exclusively on France related articles and Hardouin has a history of suspected sockpuppetry, although nothing has been proved to my knowledge. Weak evidence, but that is neither here nor there for this abuse of the 3RR). User is now trolling my talk page. --] 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at ]. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --] 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:My reversions were to the previously established version which came before ]'s controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --] 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*I've '''warned''' Aquarelle. ] 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
*:
*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{AN3|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:No block, warned)===
:That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
] violation on
{{Article|United Kingdom}}. {{3RRV|TharkunColl}}:
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional --> User is involved in an edit war on ] to do with not replacing the infobox map. He has been blocked before for 3RR and has had many similar warnings on other pages, see ] for details.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
'''This is not true. I uploaded many different maps, and at no time reverted to the same one more than twice. However, ] has indeed reverted to the same map more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and even removed the official warning I gave him on his talk page.''' ] 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
It is true that in several of the cases above TharkunColl made subtle changes to the map he uploaded in a deliberate effort to avoid 3RR, but each time he was reverting the ''same'' Euro-map which is the bone of contention. If I've transgressed it was in an effort to stop this flagrant breach of Misplaced Pages rules, and would be happy to accept a block for it. ] 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''No, this is a travesty of what I actually did. I made a map and uploaded it, then the following day made a very different map because people had expressed an opinion to show the EU. The only person who broke the 3RR rule is ]. I did not report him, because in my opinion crying to the teacher is petty.''' ] 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268203165|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204621|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204745|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204943|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268205104|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268208200|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
It's really pointless you going on like this Tharkun - the admins can see the log of diffs for themselves and will be able to decide on the evidence. ] 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Absolutely! I have made a number of different maps based on what was discussed. All you did was revert to the same map.''' ] 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Except it wasn't just me, you were busy changing reverts by other editors too, as you are doing tonight on ]. ] 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
'''You reverted to the same map four times. I listed the times you did this on your talk page, but you deleted it (twice). I have proposed a succession of different maps based on the discussion for that day. I have ''not'' uploaded any map more that 3 times in 24 hours. You, on the other hand, uploaded the same map 4 times.''' ] 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
'''This is the place where I inserted the official warning onto ]'s talk page for breaking 3RR (it also lists the times that he broke it) . He deleted my warning, and deleted it again when I put it back. ] appears to be under the impression that he has achieved some sort of consensus regarding the European maps issue, but this is very far from the case as a perusal of ] will reveal. My intention was to create a better map for the ] article, and each new one I created was based on discussions held at ] over a period of three days. ], however, apparently felt that he had an overriding right to continually remove my maps, ''based on discussions he had had on a different talk page'' - and in so doing breached 3RR. My own opinion is that an appropriate map always enhances Misplaced Pages, but a shoddy one devalues it. To see a selection of maps that I have created, including the three different ones under discussion here, please see my user page ].''' ] 09:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Comment''': Dismiss. This is not a 3RR case but a content dispute. I suggest both users take a deep breath and discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:(editconflict) :As I can see discussion on the talk page of the article, and you seem to have reached an agreement as to the usage of the image, no blocks will be issued at this time. However, blocks will be used as a preventive measure to deter editors from edit-warring further. Best regards, — ] 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: no block)===
#
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
''' Comments:''' The above mentioned user has been blocked prior to . Others have in the past complained about his behavior number of times . In the above mentioned article he is in edit war with others and has personally attacked other . He has called other editors “apologists of terror groups” and I have tried to reason with the editor to allow the wiki process to take it but he refuses to let a to this issue harmoniously instead keeps reverting the article. In the last 48 hours he had reverted it 4 times.] 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
'''In addition''' on {{Article|Saare Jahan Se Achcha}}, a clear desire to edit war and troll can be found in the . Reverts on that page span 4 reverts in 25 hours
<b>]]</b> 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
*'''admin note'''. No block, reversions over more than 24 hours. ] 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: no block)===
:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
] violation on
{{Article|Chris Daly}}. {{3RRV|71.139.4.32}}:
:]
* Previous version reverted to:
:"""
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* 1st revert: 14:56, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk)
:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* 2nd revert: 10:01, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk)
:""" ] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* 3rd revert: 01:36, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk)
* 4th revert: 01:34, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk)
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
-->
::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
*::::# I notify the user
*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->User has repeatedly reverted over a period of several weeks. I have placed 3 Rule warnings on his/her page, but they were ignored. ] 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
*'''Admin comment'''. There's not much point in a 3RR block, since this user obviously is resetting his/her IP regularly. A semi-protect will stop the shenanigens for a while. ] 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Transnistria}}. {{3RRV|William Mauco}}:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
# {{diff2|1268269093|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268248948|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* Necessary only for new users: Not a new user
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
''' Comments:''' Check also user's block log. All reverts are about removing a "border issue" section, which was agreed in Talk by 4 editors (me, ], ] and ]) , but with which ] don't agree. Some of reverts are also about removing other information. I have to mention that "border issues" section was a stable part of this unstable article from 2 September until end of December and its removal was one of the reasons of the edit war which was the cause of article protection for 3 weeks.--] 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' I tried had a discussion with the IP editor on their talk page about misunderstandings on the definition on 'environment' which they seemed to come around on. But then they started adding in and edit warring there . Blatant troll ]. ] (]) 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I made four edits, and not all four were clearcut reverts. The page was protected until less than 24 hours ago. Instead of seeking consensus in Talk, ] waited until it was unprotected. Then he immediately launched onto the page and made 9 major edits within 7 hours. It is not just a "border issues" section, as he claims, and he did not wait for consensus. In fact, some of the editors whom he cites are involved with me in an ongoing and very constructive discussion on how to improve this section in ] right now. May I also request that you look closely at the DIFFs which he provides, as one of them shows an alternate border issues section added by me (and proposed by another user) which had broader support and consensus on the talk page. - ] 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
:::All 4 are reverts, at least regarding "border issues" section. There is no alternative border issue section added by Mauco. Some are also reverts regarding US Department of State position or of usage of word "officially" regarding Pridnestrovie name for Transnistria. All issues were long discussed in Talk. Anybody who check my edit count can see that I have a lot more edits in Talk pages than in mainspaces, the claim that I don't seek consensus in talk is fake.--] 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
:Nishkid has protected the talk page; also a good amount of time has elapsed since you engaged in edit-warring. I do not see blocks as being useful. Both the users have breached ]; and will not be subjected to leniency next time. — ] 09:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
''' Comments:''' User has history of reverting and deleting content with citations and adding content without citations including blogs.Please also see his reverts on Jan 3rd.this is despite another anon requseting in the talk page not to revert and adding expert India to accomodate is his point of view.] 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*'''admin commment'''. No violation of ] here. ] 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Transnistria}}. {{3RRV|MariusM}}:
*Previous version reverted to:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Necessary only for new users: Not a new user, but I warned him anyway out of courtesy:
Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
''' Comments:''' Cronic edit warrior, see his block log. Frequent use of uncivil and/or misleading edit comments. Background: ] was under full protection due to previous revert warring. Many of us are in the process of working out the issues in Talk at this point in time, and making progress. Protection was prematurely lifted in 19 Jan at 12:56. Immediately thereafter, ] took advantage of this by falsely claiming "consensus" when there was none, adding disputed pet POV items, and removing of stable features of the article. Despite nine edits in seven or eight hours, he was notably unwilling to seriously discuss most of this in the same period in the article's Talk page where I and other editors meanwhile kept working on developing acceptable phrasing, with a lot of progress. - ] 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
:Only 5th, 8th and 9th are reverts, rest are edits long discussed in talk. Some of them are consecutive edits for different part of the article (you can see my name in previous edit). In fact, Mauco want to have veto rights for all Transnistria-related articles. Talk page is showing that the majority of editors accepted the changes that I added, only Mauco was against, he broke the 3RR (see above report) and I had to revert him. I stopped at 3 reverts.--] 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:As an example of bad faith by the person who reported me, he agreed to remove the paragraph "Transnistria in popular culture" , however now he listed the agreed edit as my 4th revert. Also, he agreed to split the "violent incidents" section in "antisemitic incidents" and "explosions" but now he is reporting this agreed edit as my 3rd revert.--] 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:Page has been protected by admin Nishkid64. See above. — ] 09:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Diff of 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
This user has also added content of a similar nature farther back but they aren't direct reverts so I guess they don't count. He has been warned several times for several policy violations on his ] but they have been summarily ignored or denied. ] 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:12h. — ] 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours each)===
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Mexico}}. {{3RRV|Mexico}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Continued reverts in 24 hr; also see above:
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 5th revert (I think):
* 6th revert:
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* Diff of 3RR warning:
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
After some rigmarole and prior edit warring (admittedly), an agreeable version of the article -- namely about Mexico's location in the Americas -- has surfaced. However, this user continues to revert to a biased version and eliminate unrelated edits (which are cited), is rather beligerent, has been warned by me and , and is also deliberately trying to , (translation: he's 'tiring' of me); also consult ]. ] 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
The "previous version" is supposed to be the one he is reverting to, so we know that the first revert is indeed a revert ] 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
: Fixed; now, can you or someone investigate and take action? ] 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
===] reported by ] (Result:48h by Alkivar)===
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] violation on
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
{{Article|Barbie Blank}}. {{3RRV|Duderawk}}:
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* Diff of 3RR warning:
#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
''' Comments:''' Continually adding of a spamlink to an image gallery -- not only to this article but to a number of bio articles -- under the premise that "they're models, so it should be allowed."
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
:Blocked by another administrator for a duration of 48 hours. — ] 10:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
] violation on
{{Article|Talk:Ass to mouth}}. {{3RRV|193.219.28.146}}:
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: (user warned after this, by me and administrator)
* 3rd revert: (final warning by me)
* 4th revert: (user responded to warnings on ] and proceded to defy them)
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
*: Here is another text than in previous edits. ] 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:
* Diff of admin ] warning about trolling:
* Diff of final 3RR warning:
End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
''' Comments:''' Anonymous editor persists in writing an inflammatory trolling comment on the ], in spite of warnings and explanations. In between those reverts, a tag was added to the top of the page explaining that this article had survived an AfD, in the hope that this would convince the anon editor to stop the trolling. That intermediate version is now the "previous version reverted to", ''not'' the earlier version prior to the trolling edits.
:He has been reverted by a group of (I think 5, maybe 4) editors now. Please block him as he is not helping improve the article just making wide ranging comments about the site.-]<sup>]</sup> 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::This is one little comment. Please, stop using misleading plural form "comments". Thank you. ] 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
''2007-01-21T00:20:04 Wangi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "193.219.28.146 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption)'' ] 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:As soon as the 24h was up, the user resumed past activity, and has already built up another 3RR violation. He has promised to continue on his talk page. His last comment stated that if his IP is banned, he'll continue with a sock account. =] 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: <s>1week</s> unblocked)===
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
] violation on
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
{{Article|Prem Rawat}}. {{3RRV|VictorO}}:
*1strevert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* Note: there are a couple more reverts, but the above should be enough.
; Comments:
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* request 24 hrs block for 3RR and another 24 hrs for disruption
#
#
#
''2007-01-20T22:21:02 Sandstein (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "VictorO (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism)'' ] 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Not vandalism. I have approached Sandstein to reduce the duration of the block as this was the first fault of the user. — ] 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::Per the discussion below regarding his fellow edit warrior and on Nick's request, I've reduced the block to 24h for 3RR. ] 10:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict)<s>OK, Sandstein has responded below. However, this user was not vandalising, and was blocked because he was reported on ]. And since the user below was not blocked, I am going to unblock this user and leave him with a warning.</s> I am going to continue discussion with Sandstein on this. — ] 10:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Look, now that you have agreed that it was not vandalism, it is only appropriate to unblock VictorO, as the user below was not blocked for the violation of ]. In case they feel like returning to revert-warring, we can reinstate preventive blocks again. Thanks. — ] 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Okay, feel free to unblock him. Although one could just as well block the other guy too, their editwarring is no longer going on and so blocks on either side appear to be no longer required. This is getting to be a waste of our time, even though I was less than perfectly diligent, I guess, in slapping the "vandal" label on this case at the outset. ] 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:No block)===
] violation on
{{Article|Prem Rawat}}. {{3RRV|Mael-Num}}:
*1strevert:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
; Comments
* Request 24 hrs block for 3RR violation and another 24 hrs for disruption
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
In view of the prev block for vandalism, no block ] 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:This user was as disrupting as the other, reverting without seeking consensus, on an an item that is disputed and that is being discussed. I would request a re-assesment of the unblock. ] <small>]</small> 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I made my determination purely on the basis of the other edits being decreed vandalism. I'm happy for others to look at this users edits, though ] 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
:::William, It is unacceptable that a user can get way with violating 3RR, by claiming that he is "reverting vandalism". The material that one was adding and the other removing, is currently being discussed by other editor's at that article's talk page. New users need to learn ''not'' to engage in edit wars, and I had hoped that both editwarriors be blocked for 48hrs or more. I would appreciate another pair of eyes to reassess the unblock. ] <small>]</small> 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::If I may speak in my own defense, I attempted to open discussion with my fellow editors through the edit notes and submitted requests for dialogue and ultimately warnings on users' talk pages. Two admins reviewing this situation, ] and ], seem to be in agreement that the reverts were vandalism, and that I therefore shouldn't be banned. Is it really necessary to continue soliciting additional opinions? ] 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I was asked to comment here. I can't see how the edits that were reverted could count as vandalism. It looks like a regular content dispute about whether the external links were appropriate, and as such I see it as a clear 3RR violation. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Am I to take it now that Jossi is privately soliciting opinions to have me removed from participating in the ] article, while pro-Rawat editors simultaneously rip the article apart? . As it is, due to this spurious set of accusations, my hands are tied in protecting long-stable material that has consensus for being there. Am I the only one who finds all this a teensy bit suspect? ] 03:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::"long stable material"? The material about which you edit warred was added yesterday. Rather than revert each other and violate 3RR, you could have discussed rather than accusing a fellow editor of vandalism, to get him blocked as . ] <small>]</small> 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, the material being removed in my examples above has, for at least several months, been part of the article ], which despite consensus being against merging, was suddenly (and expertly) merged by a previously uninvolved editor, with no prior indication that this was to be done and no apparent solicitation of his help or advice. I could show that there was no consensus for this move, and that the material was stable, but all information was expunged from ], so I have no evidence to give. I noted the behavior of vandalism, and followed proceedure, and the involved admin agreed with my assessment and took appropriate steps. ] 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No material was deleted in the merge by a third-party editor. In any case, note that this board is not to discuss content disputes, Mael, but to look into violations of ] and disruption. 03:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:{{u|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::: That is a straw man argument. I never claimed it was deleted in the merge, but stated explicitly that it is occurring ''now'', after the (unexpected and contested) move occurred. I offer this information not to seek resolution on it but so that investigating admins may more readily understand the "bigger picture" of events involved. Why are you trying to minimize this point and misrepresent my argument? ] 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Because there is no excuse to editwarring, and no excuse to disrupting Misplaced Pages to ], as you did with your six reverts and spurious "vandalism" reports and sockpuppet acussation. ] <small>]</small> 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And that's the reason for misrepresenting my argument? Quite Machiavellian, IMO. ] 05:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
::::::::Also note that William did not support the block, just unblocked you because of the allegations of vandalism upon which Sandstein blocked your edit warring partner. He asked for other admins to take a look and did not oppose a review. My opinion is that both of you should be blocked for 24 hrs for 3RR violation and another 24hrs for disruption. ] <small>]</small> 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Are you suggesting that William didn't look into the matter and make a judgement on his own? ] 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Read what he says, Mael "I made my determination purely on the basis of the other edits being decreed vandalism. I'm happy for others to look at this users edits". ] <small>]</small> 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::So you're saying that, in William's judgement, it's likely that another admin's decision that it was vandalism was probably a good decision? Or are you saying that William just closed his eyes and started mashing buttons? ] 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::And finally, I would ask you to be cautious with your accusations of socket puppetry as you did . If you have such suspicions place a request at ] and provide the necessary evidence as per policy. ] <small>]</small> 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
:::::I wouldn't have blocked VictorO for vandalism either. Both parties appear to have violated 3RR. Both should be blocked for 24 hours; longer if they're engaged in other disruption, or if they've been blocked several times already for 3RR. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::That's an odd opinion, given that he received warnings of vandalism both on his talk page and in the comments section of the article's history. I know for a fact that he saw the vandalism notices in history, as he mimicked them back to me. ] 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::::: I would ask that admins checking this board, implement a 24 to 48 hr block on both users. {{user|VictorO}} to be unblocked and re-blocked and {{user|Mael-Num}} to be blocked for the same period. ] <small>]</small> 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
::::::I'd be willing to block both for 24 hours, but I don't like undoing other admins' work if they object, so I'll put a note on William's and Sandstein's talk pages and ask for their opinion. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
:::::::So, just so I'm clear on this, you don't see a decision as being vandalism even if vandalism warnings were made, attempts to dialogue attempted, and blanking of cited material continuing despite a big "final warning" being placed on the user page? I guess it's a good thing Jossi called you for a second opinion then! ] 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268451301|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268450870|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268449472|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268448980|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
(De-indent) I was the admin blocking {{vandal|VictorO}} for 1 week on an AIV request by Mael-Num, and now I've been requested to comment here. As far as I could then tell, VictorO was repeatedly removing large amounts of content that looked ''prima facie'' quite valid and that did not appear to be unsourced libelous material, without engaging in any discussion about it. Looking closer though, it's probably better to characterise this as a content dispute about the appropriateness of external links, as SlimVirgin does. So, now what?
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
* I'd not reduce the block on VictorO until he actually complains about it. When he posts an {{tl|unblock}} message, we'll have a request to consider.
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
* I can see how it could have been justified to have also blocked his fellow edit warrior for 3RR (with which policy, I'll have to admit, I don't have a lot of experience). I'm just not sure what the point would be to do this ''now'', as the edit war is perforce over now. In my understanding of ] blocks are ever only preventative and not punitive in nature.
At any rate, the time spent here might be better spent on the article talk page discussing the appropriateness of the content at issue. I hope these comments have been helpful and I'll not revert any action of SlimVirgin that they might want to take in this issue. Best, ] 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:Note that VictorO seems to be a ] and the block template you placed, does not have the wording for requesting an unblock. ] <small>]</small> 08:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
::If the ruling was that VictorO was blocked for vandalism, I don't see how another editor should be punished for removing such said vandalism. ] 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
:::VictorO has been unblocked. No point in blocking this user; lot of time has already elapsed. Continue discussion on talk page of the article. — ] 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Let me clarify my position... first, I thought I'd made it clear that if anyone wanted to reblock M-N, I was happy with that. Second, ''It is unacceptable that a user can get way with violating 3RR, by claiming that he is "reverting vandalism"'' isn't true: there is a reverting-vandalism exception, and since VO was blocked for vandalism, it seemed reasonable to invoke it. However, it may well have been inappropriate in this case ] 12:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
:Thanks William, for the clarification. Sure, we have an exception in reverting vandalism, but when claims of vandalism are made to obfuscate one's editwarring, that is surely ''not'' acceptable. ] <small>]</small> 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I wasn't relying on M-N's claims, but on the fact that VO was blocked for vandalism ] 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
:::Sorry I'm late. But no one told me this was on!] 13:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
===] reported by ] (Result:96 hours)===
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
] violation on
{{Article|Brock Lesnar}}. {{3RRV|Martin181}}:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
# {{diff2|1268687321|01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
* 1st revert:
# {{diff|oldid=1268684554|diff=1268686155|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* 2nd revert:
## {{diff2|1268685840|01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
* 3rd revert:
## {{diff2|1268686155|01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!--
# {{diff2|1268688594|01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "]Created page with '== January 2025 == ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> You didn't read the ] carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
''' Comments:''' 3rd time this user has broken the rule on the same article. ] 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
:96h. — ] 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===], ] reported by ] (Result:48h)===
] violation on
{{Article|Adolf Hitler}}.
<!-- I know I need to list times, i'll go back for that shortly -->
Mark
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Haham
* 1st:
* 2nd:
* 3rd:
* 4th:
The user was not following the ] correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Complex, need an admin to look through this and over this to decide who all is at fault and what actions should be taken. --<small> ]<sup>]</sup> </small> 02:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! ] (]) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually as far as I can tell, none of us were specifically in breach of 3RR, although there has been some frustrating editing going on. Perhaps if Feba can fill out the template properly, we can speed things up! ] 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. ] (]) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, sorry about that, busy busy --<small> ]<sup>]</sup> </small> 02:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
The 5 you present as mine are in the wrong order and two of them are the same edit done in two steps. The remaining three are spaced over more than 24 hours. A simple check on the history page will confirm this. ] 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I know they're backwards. I don't have any programs or bots making this easier on me. This is all CTRL+V. And again man, it's not worth getting angry on wikipedia. I'm ''not'' taking sides in this, because I don't really care about the subject, I care about making wikipedia a better medium. If you want to call me a crappy editor or something, my sig has a link to my talk page, feel free to use profanities. --<small> ]<sup>]</sup> </small> 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|180.195.212.14}}
:Both blocked. MarkThomas, I count 4 reverts in under 26 hours, and combined with your incivility in edit summaries (calling others "vandalistic") and the fact that you have been blocked before for edit warring, I think you need some time off, 3RR or no. ]·] 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::Endorse block. — ] 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The user is edit-warring to insert a list of "supported by" countries into the military conflict infobox.
''' Comments:''' Not a new user, so no warnings were served. Infact, this user has been blocked before and also .
:I am a new user. Mr.Kannambadi and his friends are removing cited info. U can check the history and talk page of the same. It seems Mr.Kannambadi is coming with new ids, be it above or KNM who woked up alive only after December 2nd minutes after mr.kannambadi and mr.sarvanya reverted?I have only added citation details and reverted the removal of info.Plz check the of above user.] 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::48h. — ] 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
===] reported by ] (Result:31h)===
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' See also ].<!-- Optional -->
''2007-01-21T12:30:55 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Bosniak (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (disruption, revert-warring, trolling, incivility - discussed on ANI)'' ] 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:No action)===
] violation on
{{Article|Center for Consumer Freedom}}. {{3RRV|Nssdfdsfds}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
*8th revert:
*9th revert:
*10th revert:
*11th revert:
*12th revert:
''' Comments:''' User:Nssdfdsfds clearly tried to vandalize the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) article. He/She deleted anything remotely critical of the Center for Consumer Freedom, including the verified donations from tobacco giant Philip Morris and the list of the board of directors for the CCF. User:Rosemaryamey tried to add back the board of directors list, but User: Nssdfdsfds deleted it again. This user clearly has a pro-CCF bias, and it shows in all twelve revisions. I believe user:Nssdfdsfds should be banned from further editing on the Center For Consumer Freedom article.
:Provide the reversions in sequence, all you have done is provide consequent diffs; where the reversions are appropriately visible. — ] 09:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::Looking at the history of the article, I don't even see a possibility where 3RR could've been broken. It's essentially a list of edits by Nssdfddfds, one edit by someone else and then more by the first user. Not even possible to violate 3RR. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
* 1st revert:[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vaikom_Satyagraha&diff=101995109&oldid=101956402 13:26, 20 January 2007
* 2nd revert:[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/? title=Vaikom_Satyagraha&diff=102078097&oldid=102046628 21:49, 20 January 2007
* 3rd revert:[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vaikom_Satyagraha&diff=102184373&oldid=102157227 09:31, 21 January 2007
''' Comments:''' User:Rumpelstiltskin223 has engaged in edit warring in ].despite being warned he continues to do so remove and delete content which is cited without raising the issue in the talk page.
User is prone for edit warring and has banned in the past for 3RR violations
atleast 3 times before.] 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::I don't see 4 reverts. The complainant, in fact, has been abusing this article and filling it with statements not supported by the references, and eulogizing an extremely violent and reactionary racist (along the lines of ]). He has not shown the willingness to discuss and, in fact, has gone against consensus as seen by this revert of his tendentious edits not done by me so I am not in the wrong here. ] 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:The user is a prone for edit warring has been blocked '''4 times before ''' for persistent edit warring and violation of the 3RR
1:
2:
This is the 5 time he is doing so and I feel he cannot say he did it in error .He was warned yesterday.The Consenus is in the page and another user had clearly asked others not to revert cited information.The content dispute can be solved with the help of a India editor.This is delibrate as it 4 time he ahs done in different articles despite being banned 4 times earlier.Further ] is not responsible for even a single death and equating him with ] is merely a matter of personal opinion.] 10:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:3 reverts by RPSS. I am going to protect the page. — ] 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::It is suspected that ] is another sockpuppet account of ] currently under 1 year ban and on 1 edit allowance along with those who reported him due to extensive edit warring on similar type of India related contentious pages.] 11:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It is suspected that ] is another sockpuppet account of ] currently under 1 year ban and due to extensive edit warring on similar type of India related contentious pages.
He has been blocked 4 times since Dec 16 and 3 times this month for 3RR violations this month and this his 4th this month.I feel merely protecting the page is too lenient as he is a repeat offender as he did in ].Sorry to write for if repeated edit warring are not stopped Misplaced Pages will suffer ] 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:Page protected)===
] violation on
{{Article|Šarūnas Jasikevičius}}. {{3RRV|M.K}}:
* Previous version reverted to: <!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' User '''M.K''' insists upon restoring three inaccuracies to the ].
*User has not at all verified Šarūnas Jasikevičius's marriage details. It's up to the user placing the statement there to cite it, no one else. If it's not properly sourced, it gets removed.
*Šarūnas Jasikevičius is a Golden State Warriors player, as he played his first game with them recently. If he is not aware of this, that's too bad - '''ignorance about a subject is not an excuse for reverting'''.
*Šarūnas Jasikevičius was born in 1976, when Lithuania was then part of the former Soviet Union (whether anyone likes it or not).
] has reverted '''three times''', but should know the rules regarding this. Please someone talk to him; he or she has clearly not done the right thing here. --] 10:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:First of all there is no ] violation. Second if you asking information stop reverting peoples, because they can`t produce ref then they are all time reverted. Second if you had any interest you could find universal information which you deleting in several articles like this one: ]. Second hiding proper category is not very constructive, your statment such as only because you do not know is unaccountable, btw he scored 10 points in this team. second on your "statment" ''He was born in 1976, when Lithuania as we know it was then part of the Soviet Union'' while yes, this why in article is written ] now ]; missed this one too? So next time before reverting edits better go under proper investigation. ] 10:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)P.S I would also like to ask that neutral editor evaluated anon`s remark left on my talk: ''You realise you're free to take your personal biases to a blog site or something...'''
::3 reverts, but not ] violation. I have protected the page. — ] 10:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
I explained in the talk page why it is better to use ], and so did another person.--] 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:User Nationalist only made 3 edits, for 3RR to be broken, more than three edits have to be made within a 24 hr period. There is no breach of 3RR. ] 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::I have also explained my position. Apparently, he doesnt listen and thinks hes correct, which several people have proved him to be Incorrect. He is pushing a proTaiwan independence extremist view. I am just trying to counter it, because things were fine before he came along with his mass deletions of "Republic of China" The ROC is a sovereign nation with jurisdiction in Taiwan. Please see Republic of China article -] 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on
{{Article|Pederasty}}. {{3RRV|69.87.183.178}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
There aren't ANY messages on his page, including 3RR warnings. Considering he's an IP user who doesn't even have a week old contribs log, I say we ] and just let him know he can't do that. --<small> ]<sup>]</sup> </small> 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
: Good point. However, ample warnings were giving in edit summaries. He replied to those warnings with a personal attack. ] 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I'd still give him the benefit of the doubt. WP says to be bold, he probably took it more personally than he should've (which is suggested since he didn't seem to read WP policies ahead of time, which most people don't.) Give him another chance, and some knowledge instead of outright banning him --<small> ]<sup>]</sup> </small> 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::: No problem here. I should probably have tried to reach him through talk pages instead of edit summaries. ] 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
24h ] 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
===] ''RE''-reported by ] (Result: 48h)===
] violation on
{{Article|Talk:Ass to mouth}}. {{3RRV|193.219.28.146}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
User blocked 24h, resumed 3RR immediately afterward. History prior to blocking:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: (user warned after this, by me and administrator)
* 3rd revert: (final warning by me)
* 4th revert: (user responded to warnings on ] and proceded to defy them)
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
At this point the user was blocked 24h. After promising on his talk page to resume previous activity after block was up, another 3RR violation was racked up almost immediately:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:
* Diff of admin ] warning about trolling:
* Diff of final 3RR warning:
''' Comments:''' This is a repost and expansion of a similar report above. Anonymous editor persists in writing an inflammatory trolling comment on the ], in spite of warnings and explanations. He was blocked for 24 hours. During that time, he promised on his talk page to resume previous activity after 24h passed. His last comment on the talk page indicates he will resume this activity under a sockpuppet account if the IP is banned again. I personally don't care at this point, just reporting 3RR because it happened; he probably won't cause trouble if his little message can only appear on the talk page. =] 05:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
48h ] 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:And once again, as soon as this second ban completed, this user resumed the same disruptive activity. The user's talk page is filled with explanations, requests to stop, and requests to explain himself, to no avail. =] 06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
''' Comments:''' Repeated violations of 3RR against consensus.
Not again! 24h this time ] 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
=== ] reported by ] 24h===
] violation on
{{Article|Uncyclopedia}}. {{3RRV|Miltopia}}:
All reversions occured on January 22nd.
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
''' Comments:'''
Repeated violation of 3RR.
User a marginal troll; 24h ] 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:Indef block)===
] violation on
{{Article|Slavery}}. {{3RRV|SolRosenBerg}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Diffs:
etc
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
Warned as and
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
Repeatedly inserting copyrighted screenshot after being notified of this and 3RR. Uses IP and account above (see article history for reference). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Report malformed and unreadable. Please format appropriately to aid us with assessing this case. --] ] 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::User has been indefinitely blocked for disruption. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 8 hours)===
] violation on
{{Article|Dragon Ball AF}}. {{3RRV|MajinPower}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
::The warning was well after the edits in question. --] ] 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Further examination shows that the user continued reverting after the warning. Blocked for 8 hours. Please include further diffs with the report if the user continues on edit warring. Thanks. --] ] 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Eh? 3RR warning came at 15:09, after the second revert (14:46) and before the third (15:48) with a fourth at (15:52), as noted above. -- ] 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::You've got your preferences set so they don't display the time as UTC, so when I looked at the diff for your warning it said it was at 22:09, and I took your word on the times of the reverts. Was simply a misunderstanding. Not that it made any difference in the assessment of the case, mind. --] ] 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::: *smacks forehead* oops. Sorry about that :) -- ] 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:24hrs)===
] violation on
{{Article|Illegal immigration to the United States}}. {{3RRV|Psychohistorian}}:
*My adding of original sentence:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
* 10th revert:
* 11th revert:
* 12th revert:
* 13th revert:
* 14th revert:
* 15th revert:
* 16th revert:
* 17th revert:
* 18th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' There are many other violations of ] involving other phrases, headings, etc, but for convieneince, I'll stick to the opening sentence of the section. The sentence is as follows: ''The ] uses a variety of terms to refer to people whose presence in the United States is unauthorised.'' <!-- Optional -->--] 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:24hrs for breaking 3RR. ] 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on
{{Article|Baptist}}. {{3RRV|63.105.65.5}}:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
* 10th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
:Gave that guy a {{tl|non-admin fwarn}} with a link to this section. Told me to . ] 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
''2007-01-23T06:11:00 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Nationalist (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (profanity directed at other users)'' ] 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 31h)===
] violation on
{{Article|Kent Hovind}}. {{3RRV|Ezalb}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1nd revert:
* 2rd revert:
* 3th revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:
* Second warning:
'''Comments''' Not all of these are exactly alike, but are effective attempts at putting across the same POV. ] 06:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
''2007-01-23T06:59:32 Ryan Delaney (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ezalb (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Vandalism)'' ] 09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on
{{Article|Theosophy}}. {{3RRV|218.167.167.67}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*This user has been warned on all of his IP talkpages to stop reverting (and blanking pages) since January 4.
*The other IP's are: {{IPvandal|218.167.167.67}}{{IPvandal|218.167.168.79}} {{IPvandal|218.167.169.39}}{{IPvandal|218.167.170.151}}{{IPvandal|218.167.174.6}} {{IPvandal|218.167.160.171}}
*All his IP's are in the IP block 218.167.155-180.0-255
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
24h. This may well not work in which case the easiest thing is to semi protect the article ] 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] ===
] violation on
{{Article|Vancouver}}.
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* This user has been warned on is talk page and on the article page.
* '''Comment''' This user does not assume good faith and is ignoring ] by leaving messages such as "Never use the "Minor edit" button to attempt to disguise reversions. And while I'm here, the "oh I forgot to fill in the Edit summary box" is not very convincing I'm afraid." when I forgot to write in an edit summary, or in his edit summary calls other edits "blatant vandals" when ] its clear they're trying to help. Please help. ]] 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*A discussion is ongoing on the Talk:Vancouver page to try to reach consensus on the structure of the Twinned cities section. User:Mkdw is attempting to implement changes to that section before consensus has been reached on the Talk page. User:Mkdw appears to misunderstand the nature of 3RR. I only made three reversions on 21 Jan, and the 4 edits of today are reverting different things. The first two were reverting a table that is still under discussion at Talk, and (after User:Mkdw accepted that we should restore the article to the condition it was in before the POV warring began) the 2nd two were restoring the status quo prior to an IP account first mucking about with the relevant section on 25 December. --] 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::You're skipping out the point that you're reverting to the version that was 'mucked' with and started the controversy. I'm trying to prevent your reverts by reverting it to the version before it was mucked with. ]] 12:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::That is just not true. You persistently try to apply intermediate changes to the article, trying to pre-empt the discussion on the Talk page. The Vancouver article's twinned cities section was first mucked about with by an IP address on 25 December. The pre-25 December version should stand until/unless consensus is reached at Talk. All other editors are happy to discuss this issue, but you repeatedly try to implement changes prior to consensus. Please desist. --] 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: The changes I reverted to were from . That's pre-25 Dec. and has 2 flags. The version you're reverting to is Dec 25 with 1 flag. The whole issue is about having 2 or 1 flags and for as long as I've been an editor to the article, around Dec 25 and moreso Jan is when the whole issue of removing the 2nd flag really came out. Still doesn't mean you can do it in a civil way. Also, you keep saying "you" when you are the only one reverting to that version. Everyone else: ], ], ], ], ], and ] have been adding to the article or reverting your edits. No one else but you is reverting back to that version. You keep talking about concensus, but you're forcing non-concensus by reverting everyone's work. You even reverted ]'s work that had nothing to do with that section and he was forced to revert it back again. ]] 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::So, your case is based on: "we should revert it back to the version that existed when I first started editing the article"?!? Heavens above! Please read ]. At no point did I remove the work of another editor - show us the diff. However, you did remove my edit under the guise of reverting the History of Vancouver section. This is a preposterous waste of everybody's time. I have only just realised how little you understand about policy and protocol here at Misplaced Pages. --] 13:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Today's 4 edits all seem to be directed towards the flag issue and I suspect it is a violation of the 3rr. There's obviously something of an edit war going on, anyway, and it certainly is a preposterous waste of everybody's time. On the other hand, it has been entertaining in one sense- I am laughing myself silly at the gross hypocrisy on display here- ''"implement changes...before consensus has been reached on the Talk page"''. One of these editors has a history of making spam alterations, often controversial, sometimes major, and usually politically motivated, and almost invariably without any prior warning or attempt to build consensus. Attempts to initiate discussions with him are often ignored, and he has himself in the past been known to deliberately revert efforts to revert to the status quo pending discussion, in a blatant effort to ensure that his own preferred version is maintained- regardless of consensus. The pot is very much calling the kettle black here. ] 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::] did not revert any of my rather mundane ISBN additions. ] 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*I have been advised on my Talk page to ''self-revert'' by an Admin (User:William M. Connolley), and . He clearly thinks that I have actually breached 3RR; however after re-reading 3RR for the umpteenth time, I disagree; and . Anyway, the developing consensus on the Talk page is to get rid of all these stupid flags, per ], so I await a common-sense outcome to this tedious idiocy. --] 23:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
: Its blindingly obviously 4R: of the last 4, 2 are marked "rv" and two "restore" ] 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::And how on earth is that a breach of 3RR? They were not "rv"ing the same things! --] 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:That comment of mine wasn't intended to imply I thought it was a 3RR violation, or the opposite (I didn't want to get involved with the 3RR report). I was only pointing out to Mkdw that the first set of "reverts" they linked to were outwith the 24hr period that the other four were in... And it doesn't matter really if it's different things you were reverting, see ]: ''"An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted"''. Best guideline to stick to is ]! Ta/] 10:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
''' Comments:''' This is related to a guy named Ahmad Nishitoba who has been harassing other editors consistently along with his small group of followers. He has started his own group called USN - United Submitters Nation, www.usn2161.net; and has been repeatedly forcing his groups website on the Rashad Khalifa Wikipage while removing the editing of others. If you look at the history, has has been blocked for the same behavior in the past, and he just figured a way around the block by using different user IP addresses, but the edits are always the same. He is wasting Misplaced Pages staff time and other editor's time. Other editors have discussed the issue of his USN website, and consensus is against putting it on this page. He and his few group members refuse to concede to the consensus of other editors, and harrass the others by constantly removing/ changing their edits without reason or scholarly discussion. Is there a way to give him his own Wikipage? That way he and his group can edit it to their liking.
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|Kičevo}}. {{3RRV|MatriX}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
*User has been blocked before for violating the 3RR. //] 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*New user, warning should hopefully be sufficient for now. Needs to learn the ropes. ] ] 09:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:No block)===
] violation on
{{Article|Hiram Bingham IV}}. {{3RRV|Zsero}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
**Only 3 of the edits are reverts. no block. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:No block)===
] violation on
{{Article|Jiali}}. {{3RRV|Nationalist}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
I think putting Taiwan would be more appropriate. 1st of all, the ROC is known as Taiwan, and we should always put the common names in Misplaced Pages. 2nd, if this user like the ROC that much, in the article Taiwan, it says that it is governed by the ROC anyways. 3rd, Most, more than 55% of the people living in the ROC refer themselves as Taiwanese and not Chinese. 4th, putting ROC would confuse people because they would not know the difference between ROC and PRC. See talk page of ], there is a 3rd opinion there too.
*Much more than a 24 hour period between the first edit and the last. No block. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:What can I do to stop him?--] 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:no block)===
] violation on
{{Article|Quackwatch}}. {{3RRV|Levine2112}}:
All reverts of ] below:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: (marginal; reinserting tag)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Previous block for 3RR: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Levine2112
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' Provoked by ] below. — ] | ] 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Please note that I was engaging in talk profusely and providing much citations of Misplaced Pages policy. Also note that the diffs above don't illustrate a true 3RR violation. They are all different edits except for two. Finally, with regard to my last and only 3RR block, please make note that the admin later admitted that he/she and apologized. I add this to let you know that I am a considerate editor not interested in engaging in needless edit wars. My intention here was to help a hostile newbie better understand Wiki policy; and never did I violate 3RR. Thanks for your consideration. ] 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
**I don't really think you were edit-warring, as some of the reverts are reverts of GigaButterfly's ''n''<sup>th</sup> revert, where ''n'' > 3, but I wanted to report all the 3RR violations on the same article at the same time. However, they don't all need to be the same revert to be a 3RR violation. — ] | ] 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
***I can certainly appreciate your fairness here. Thanks, Arthur. ] 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*No block; 3RR not clearly broken and the case is now days old. ] 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: no block)===
] violation on
{{Article|Quackwatch}}. {{3RRV|GigiButterfly}}:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: partial addition of the same material
* 4th revert: same plus reference to article
* 5th revert: (perhaps not exactly a revert; added additional references)
* 6th revert:
All the ones without commentary, the edit reason given was "Undo..." or "Revert"
A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
*:
*:and reply at
''' Comments:''' New user, but argumentative. — ] | ] 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*No block; 3RR not clearly broken and the case is now days old. ] 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 1 week)===
] violation on
{{Article|Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu}}. {{3RRV|Maleabroad}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
This user is not new - he has been blocked before for 3RR violation. He edits both logged in as ] and logged out as various IPs all beginning with 136.159. His most recent IP addresses are {{3RRV|136.159.32.218}} and {{3RRV|136.159.32.189}}. They are clearly the same user, as they are reverting to the same content and using the same inflammatory edit summaries. Please see the ] report for more background.
Please also note that this user has a history of block evasion. ] 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
: In the five minutes or so since posting this, user has violated 3RR on ], ] and ]. ] 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::In light of this user's rather harsh language and prior blocks, I've given it a '''weeklong block'''. ] 06:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
The edit reason given was "rv" in all cases.
''' Comments:''' Definiately not a new user, but I can't find a specific 3RR warning before. — ] | ] 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:He was after the second of the above reverts, and accused of even more ("You were already over yesterday, 8RR by my count"). He has a history of 3RR warnings (e.g. ) and in a recent arbitration case was ] and ]. ] 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well no, the edit reason was *not* rv in all cases; and its not clear why is a revert ] 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:That edit (#3) reverts the previous edit, adding back the sentence that was removed. #4 adds the sentence again. #1 removes a quote added a few hours earlier, and #2 reverts the previous edit. Seems clear enough. ] 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::This near-constant badgering of User:ScienceApologist by you at cases where you are only marginally involved, like here and previously at his RFAR, strikes me as a pattern coming perilously close to wikistalking. I'm becoming troubled by this pattern, particularly in light of the other recent issues. ] 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Who is "you"? I'm generally on SA's "side", but I would just like this to quiet down for a bit. (He had some other near-reverts, but I thought those were fairly clear. If I'm wrong, I apologize to SA and to the reviewing admin.) — ] | ] 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Not you Arthur, but Tim Smith. He sadly has a troubling history of coincidently popping up at unrelated discussions scrutinizing the actions of others he's been involved in content disputes elsewhere and rushing to aid of the attacker, such as Langan. ] 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I was surprised that this was listed, but I looked through these carefully and I count only 3 reverts (the first one is not a revert, I just removed a few choice phrases in an honest-to-goodness attempt to collaboratively edit). I know I'm jutting up against the limit (and WMC wisely counseled me to stick to 1RR, which I'm attempting to do to avoid these kinds of nasty bouts), but as can be seen from the other listings here, there is a lot of squabbling happening at ] right now. However, today seemed to be a bit better. We may be turning the corner. What I really find distasteful is ]'s advocacy. Not only did he misrepresent my edits in his post in an attempt to get me blocked, he continues to goad, bait, and Wikistalk me. Luckily, until now, he has been only a minor fly in the ointment, but as he becomes more and more savvy with Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid he may be more of a problem. ] should continue to document his obsessive behavior in this regard. --] 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::<nowiki>#1</nowiki>, like the others, is clearly a revert. Hours earlier, ScienceApologist had the quote beginning "At least 3"; it had then been . In #1, ScienceApologist , reverting the restoration. By the way, I didn't file this report. I saw Arthur Rubin's comment about not being able to find an earlier 3RR warning, and having (unfortunately) firsthand experience with ScienceApologist's history in that regard, thought I would offer some background and comment on the diffs, which seem clear enough. ] 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I'll leave the semantic arguments to those who are more obssessive than myself to determine if is equivalent to . I have summarized Tim Smith's Wikistalking of myself at the ] related to his conduct. I invite those who read this report to comment. --] 08:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
*No block; 3RR not clearly broken and the case is now days old. ] 19:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on
{{Article|Persecution of Hindus}}. {{3RRV|MinaretDk}}:
* Previous version reverted to: and partial reverts to and
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: removal of links placed by ] in earlier edit
* 4th revert: partial revert of older edits in earlier revert by ]
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: User has been around for a while and has been <nowiki>{{subst:3rr}}</nowiki> before
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
''2007-01-24T04:24:46 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MinaretDk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR Persecution of Hindus)'' ] 11:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' Scorpion0422 has been targeting the article for Survivor contestant ] and this constant revision is spillover from that. I added Calderon to the Survivor contestant template and Scorpion reverted it. It was restored and reverted four times and the fifth time I restored the information I noted in the edit note the three-revert rule. Additionally I placed a note on the article's ] advising Scorpion0422 of the three-revert rule and asking him to stop reverting it (user has been with Misplaced Pages for a year). Under the guise of making a cosmetic edit to the article, Scorpion0422 once again removed the Calderon link from the template. ] 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)<!-- Optional -->
Well congratulations, you have both broken 3RR and both calling each others edits vandalism doesn't help. 12h each ] 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 3d)===
] violation on
{{Article|Dikembe Mutombo}}. {{3RRV|Downwards}}:
Even after issuing (after the 6th revert) and requiring (rather ridiculously, if you read the context) my strict adherence to ], yet another user tried to reword it to a less "noticeable" statement, which User:Downwards still did not approve of, and as well. I gave him the opportunity to undo hir last reversion , and am only now, over half an hour after the deadline I set, am I reporting it here...eventhough other users have since stepped in.
A review of ] indicates that this is not the first time this user's "style" has come into direct conflict with ], and in light of hir familiarity with ] and refusal to regard hirself as "bound" by ], ] and to some extent ], might perhaps require further action. For now, however, I think it necessary to at least report this latest eggregious violation on hir part, so that it is "on the record".
Regards, ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 07:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Article|Belgaum}} and {{Article|Origin of Rashtrakutas}}. {{3RRV|Sarvabhaum}}:
3RR on ''']''' Article:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
3RR on ''']''' Article:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' The previous 3RR violation for this user is still visible in this page, ]. The 48 hours block was just over and the user is back with the series of reverts on several articles.
This user had been blocked multiple times for 3RR violations earlier, () and very recently he/she has been cautioned against violating 3RR, ]. Inspite of all these, the user is reverting back continuously on several articles, and has violated 3RR on at least above two articles. - ] <sup> ''']'''</sup> 13:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC) <!-- Optional -->
:1 week. — ] 14:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|Muhammad Ali}}. {{3RRV|Stevietheman}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
* ''' Comments:''' User continues to remove valid quote and link because he does not want to have Ali seen in a bad light. Different excuses given for these edits: consensus (there was none), he considers the quote an insult, libel, and vandalism.
** ] has been posting libelous information without ] and not from a ] under ], ] and ]. This and the vandalism by numerous editors has led to the page's protection by an administrator. Steveistheman has only reverted vandalism, as have I, such as , and have conformed the page to ], an official policy. I suggest Animesouth and the sock puppets review the policies. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
** Tricky. I note: ''2007-01-24T15:25:33 Can't sleep, clown will eat me (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Muhammad Ali: libel concerns )'' which implies CSCWEM at least considers the edit libel. I'll draw CSCWEM's attention to this: in the meantime, please don't re-add the material ] 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
*** Page was semi-protected due to actual vandalism (SPAM inserts and nonsense). This issue is unrelated. {{unsigned|Streeter777}}
**** Incorrect. It was an ] because various users (assuming they are socks because they added the _same_ material again and again) violated ], ] and ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 03:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*Libel in a biography of a living person is vandalism as far as I can tell. I apologize if I overstepped bounds, but Ali's good name is being sullied with the unsubstantiated opinion that he believes in segregation, and the contextual libel that comes from placement of this quote in relation to Ali's religion. Further, ] has been causing a *lot* of disruption in the Misplaced Pages here lately, not just related to the Ali article. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
**This is supposed to be NPOV. There is no concern about a "good name". This is not libel. This is a direct referenced quote that you are removing. {{unsigned|Streeter777}}
*** No, it referred to a paragraph that was taken out of context. The editor added his own commentary, and did not mention the preceding or the following paragraphs which gave indicators as to what Ali was referring to. It's called, "creative snipping." ] <small>(]) (])</small> 03:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
****And this creative snipping crafted a libel against Ali. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*This section was deleted on this Noticeboard, which is unbelievable. {{unsigned|Streeter777}}
**Latest sock-puppet of the libel spreader? ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*** Filed at ]. See the case ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
**** Accuse me of sock puppetry all you want, because it's untrue. I'm being called a "libel spreader", which is a clear personal attack. Just because people agree with me does not mean they're sock puppets! ] 06:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
***** Unfortunately, when we see the exact same edits being done by these "people who agree with you," they are pretty much the same edits. In fact, you have made this claim about other articles also. You seem to have some sort of cabal going for yourself. :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 06:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|Zen}}. {{3RRV|Freedom skies}}:
* Previous version reverted to: complex reversions actually. Seems to revolve around user not wanting mentioning of Taoism in Zen article.
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
Reverts seem to be around the existence of Taoism and it's influence in Zen. Went on the discussion page and user seems to be edit warring. This also seems to have occured in Nov. 21st of 2005 as user blocked for similar reverts twice on this archive. No diffs here as I can't seem to get them
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
- * User actually seems to have been warned before and actually locked multiple times for revert warring on the same article. Please scroll down page to 2 blocks on Nov. 21 and Nov. 23rd by Rama's arrow and William Connelly - actually these blocks were on the same current article Zen. Can't seem to get diff's for this page as it is archived.
* Diff of 3RR warning: Most recent warning but prior warnings are on this page.
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
Sorry if there are any errors. Not very used to Wiki code at all.] 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 3/48h)===
] violation on
{{Article|List of anime conventions}}. {{3RRV|Colin Keigher}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
*Please note as per AN:I that Animesouth is currently under suspicion of being an abusive sock master. --] 06:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
** Filed at ]. See the case ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*This is a terrible bad faith report. Please see for more information. :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
3h for CK, who should have stuck to 3R. But I've blocked AS too, for 3RR and (presumed) socks ] 09:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:72H each)===
] violation on
{{Article|History of Nagorno-Karabakh}}. {{3RRV|TigranTheGreat}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
This user reverted the article four times in 24 hours and 5 minutes. This is clearly gaming the system as is described here: He ignores the talk page and simply rvs the article to his version. He’s very well aware of 3RR rule as is evident from his edit summaries. ] 08:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:And with three reverts made intentionally to use 3RR as a tool to get your way (, mind 3RR)"]), and previous 3RR blocks, you are gaming as well. Both blocked. ]·] 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
User 81.179.80.13 appears to be a determined spammer who repeatedly links a commercial clock site to the WP article on Longcase Clocks. His recent links have been disguised as links to "Clock restoration," but the nature of the linked material is unchanged from its original commercial orientation. I hope this determined spammer can be stopped. This is my first report on the 3RR rule, so please forgive my mistakes in procedure and reporting. ] 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Contiguous reverts count as one, so he has at most 2. Also http://http://... doesn't work very well ] 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (Result: 12h each)===
] violation on
{{Article|Unwinnable}}. {{3RRV|Prosfilaes}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: (this reversion also broke the intro of the page - remember to fix this too!).
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' This user refuses to discuss dispute on talkpage, until AFTER he has broken 3RR and reverted to "his version". <!-- Optional -->
You've both broken 3RR. And all over an invisible comment. Silly people. 12h each ] 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Despite having an RFC filed against him, ] has been doing "sneaky reverts" to re-put contentious and NPOV-violating edits back to the page today. I warned and reverted and ] began tag-team reverting with Aminz. ] 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
: You are removing huge chunks of material sourced to ], ] and ] without discussing them on the talk page. This is a strange ] request(4 diffs are required). From the history page, it seems you are edit warring, not me. --] 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You have been under RFC for inserting large blocks of NPOV-violating material, and you came in today and just started re-adding it piecemeal to try to fit under peoples' radar. That is sneaky and deceptive editing and I'm reporting you for it. Since each of your edits constitutes a revert of something you've already added, you're about 15 edits past 3RR right now. ] 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
C'mon guv, at least *try* to file a correctly formatted report... you know, diffs and stuff? ] 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:No violation; Aminz made only two (series of) edits during the last 24h before this was filed (and one after that). Successive edits in a row count as one. ] ] 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
===] (and possibly myself) reported by ] (Result: no block)===
* Previous version reverted to: is where he first removes my message, but he responds to another section so it is not the exact same version. is the most "complete" version reverted to.
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
''' Comments:'''
I probably should just step away from this situation, but I admit it has just gotten too much under my skin. Basically Quadzilla99 keeps removing my messages from his talk page during the discussion, without moving the comments to another page. This might be speculation on my part, but it seems he just wants to remove the messages from ''his'' talk page because it's negative. During my re-reverts I also responded with new messages (my first restoration was to reply to him on his own page, but I had to restore a second time before I even had time to leave my reply). Personally, I don't think I violated 3RR, but I can understand if an admin feels I should have just walked away instead of responding. -- ] 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Read the rules. You have to try very hard to get 3RR blocked for your own talk page and Q hasn't. Just back off, Q has seen your message, *you* can be blocked for 3RR on someone else talk page ] 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:Heh, I have read the rules. He no more owns his talk page than I own this very page. Telling me that I can get blocked but he can't since it's his talk page is a bunch of bullshit. -- ] 03:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::Constant replacement of warnings on the talk pages of established users is usually considered harassment under wikipedia policy. --]] 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Please tell me you looked at the message I left on his talk page. This is '''not''' one of those warning templates or anything like that. Hell, I've removed such messages from my talk page, I definitely know the difference between such messages. The only thing close to a warning was the last comment I left where I said "''And please stop removing my messages from your talk page, it's very rude.''" I initiated discussion on his talk page, he continues on my talk page but selectively removes the discussion from his talk page. That's not archiving, that's not removing unwarranted warning messages, that's misleading. Why else would I care if he kept it on his talk page or not? -- ] 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I assume you understand that even though nobody owns their userspace, they are generally given control over it in all but a handful of situations. This is why continual edits to another user's userspace will result in the outside user being blocked and the inside user staying unblocked. I will say that it does look like a strange message to delete, but he isn't ever going to be blocked for a 3RR violation in an incident like this. If this incident should be reported anywhere, is should most likely be reported at ]--]] 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Fair enough, I can see your point on this. -- ] 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:24H)===
] violation on
{{Article|India}}. {{3RRV|Paul_Raj}}:
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Warning: Editor has been previously blocked for the same edits on the same page.
''' Comments:'''
User appears unwilling to abide by the apparent consensus of editors that listing Ayyavazhi in the list of religions of India gives undue weight to this faith. Diffs show 4 reverts in 24:11. 3RR rule is not license to 3 reverts every 24 hours. Request that reviewing admin not permit gaming of the system. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:User has been blocked by ]. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:No action taken)===
] violation on
{{Article|Mohammed Al Amoudi}}.{{Article|Black billionaires}}. {{3RRV|Vexperiential}}:
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* ignore discussion and revert controversial points.
--] 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)~
According to wikipedia, the one time we're allowed to violate the 3 revert rule as often as we want is when removing poorly sourced inforation of a controversial nature from articles dealing with living persons. I did the responsible thing.]
:Please follow the rules when listing users here. Thanks. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:
''' Comments:''' Insistent upon ] violation. May require further monitoring after this. — ] ] — 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
*If the admin could also leave a note about talk page vandalism, wikistalking and personal attacks, that would be great. I'm disengaging with this user, per ]]. — ] ] — 04:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
Reportee is engaged in a 3RR edit war in two or more articles. He has been warned. He is reverting several other editors who are explaining their reasons and attempting to compromise. He just reverts every time.
Also other users have stated that this user appears as though he may be a sockpuppet of ], based on POV, and edit style. This discussion is found on ].
] 05:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
As I explained above, wikipedia policy demands that poorly sourced statements of a controverisal nature MUST be immediately removed from any article dealing with living persons. According to wikipedia this is the one time we're allowed to violate the 3 revert rule. We can't allow people citing blogs to make controversial statements about living figures and this is clearly spelled out in wikipedia policy and it's our responsibility as wikipedia users to enforce this policy quite aggressively. I'm all for negotiating with other editors and reaching compromise, but not when it requires us to violate the basic rules upon which wikipedia is built.]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
''' Comments:''' Arthur Rubin has been edit warring on numerous pages related to 9/11 including this template, where he stuck directly to 3RR, the talk page of all places where he violated 3RR and ] where he again constantly reverts. Can something be done about this disruptive behaviour. Arthur seems to embrace reverting instead of participating in the ongoing discussions, including at one point stating he will not accept any middleground ... He seems to be on a revert spree, and of all places it hit this talk page. --]<s>]</s> 11:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Bit weird. Not sure yet. Anyone else should probably read ] first ] 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:Not sure what one has to do with the other. Its not ok to violate 3RR unless reverting simple vandalism. This is not the case here and Arthur Rubin vioalted 3RR. Arbcom enforcements are not scarlet letters and cannot be used to break policies. I ask you look at this independantly without letting a previous Arbcom hearing bias your decision. I would also like to point out that I did not violate 3RR. --]<s>]</s> 14:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:I would also like to point out that they are not just reverting me but an anon and 2 other users: --]<s>]</s> 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::All of Nuclear's edits were ''complex'' vandalism changing the meaning of ''my'' comments by removing formatting, in addition to attempting to restore Usenet-style quoting to the article. At the very least, it made they impossible to make a coherent reply to ]'s replies to my comments. No other editor's material other than (possibly) ] was reverted. And see also ]. Those were just a few examples of his edit warring, in addition to format warring here.
::In terms of the reverts on {{tl|911ct}}, the anon is ], so, over the past 3 days, I've only reverted Nuclear, Bov, and Lovelight. One could make the argument that Nuclear's reverts are void under the Arbcom ruling, but that's still only 6 reverts of 2 versions I consider an attempt to damage articles including the template, over 3 days. (The template has since been reverted again by others.) — ] | ] 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::No Arthur, it is you who are throwing nonsense (and stones) instead of arguments, acting robustly, reverting without addressing point(s) of . To make things perfectly clear, I'm still puzzled about this user bov, don't think we've been introduced and I know very little about his ''position''. I know user Nuclear and I admire his helpful knowledge of WP's, however if we seem to share the same opinion it is not because we have some sort of joint endeavor (as you are constantly, blatantly and regrettably trying to imply). For some reason, you are acting like we are in the middle of some "group agenda"? Why is that? I'm trying hard not to recognize such circus ever since I've joined here… you folks are making it a real effort. It is extremely hard to act decently, to constantly turn the other cheek, while listening to and watching you enforce your irrationalities (just like Orwell; what you are actually doing is: "Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table: 2+2=5") without any attempt to From any decent perspective, you, , Tom, even Aude.., were running amok yesterday, and if there were some order in this chaos you would loose your driving license for a few days, because you're driving is, if nothing else, then reckless. As for those notes bellow, you shouldn’t talk about consensus if we are talking about revert (edit) wars. Consensus should be reached on talk page (which you've completely ignored), but it might be that I'm mistaken on that. ] 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Changed the meaning of your edits? you do realize the admin will look at the difs right? I put Lovelights comments back where she put them and added response in front of them in bold so it would stand out that she was responding to the comment, then fixed the numbering since she broke that when replying to you. How did I change the meaning of your words, far stretch Arthur. I do not know how it could have been impossible to just reply under her replies ... you are familiar with using ":" to indent I hope.
:::Also please note Arbcom rulings do not allow you to ignore my edits. Your arguement that my reverts are void and do not count toward your 3RR is quite wrong. You are not allowed to revert people withuot discussion simply because they have been to Arbcom before. I hope you do not take rulings in such a manner. Rulings are not permission to disrespect your fellow editors and ignore them. --]<s>]</s> 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::It is also big of you Arthur to admit to reverting against concensus, stating you are reverting 3 people on the same template. --]<s>]</s> 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::In order:
::::You changed the meaning of my edits the second and third time by removing the formatting on my reply set, causing the paragraphs to run together. As I had three paragraphs to reply to the four concerns on the second reply, the rethreaded version then would have made no sense.
::::It's arguable whether the Arbcom ruling makes your tendendtious edits "voidable" or "void". If "void", my reverting them is considered reverting vandalism. If "voidable", it only becomes reverting vandalism retroactively if the Arbcom rules.
::::And, finally, there is clearly no consensus for either of the two versions of the {{tl|911ct}} template that you reverted to. If I were to count, there were two editors (Bov (and his IP address when he could not log in) and you) for the "Alternative" version, two (Lovelight and you) for the "controlled demolition" version, and 4 (including me) for the "conspiracy theory" version. If there was consensus, it was for the "conspiracy theory" version.
:::: I should add this false claim of consensus to the request for arbcom enforcement. — ] | ] 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::You arent seriously counting Morton and Tbeatty who appear on the page once every few days just to revert someone and havent added any content to the template are you? It seems you are actually refusing to participate in discussions and edit warring with 3 people then, I am glad you admitted this. --]<s>]</s> 20:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Whether there is concensus is irrelevant to the 3RR question; the questions with respect to 3RR on the talk page are my claim that two of the four of your edits that I reverted damaged my text, making them ''complex'' vandalism; and whether your violation of your probation makes those edits retroactively vandalism. However, I cannot edit the talk page while this 3RR is open;<s> which is probably just as well, because the article is protected and may be deleted.</s> — ] | ] 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::This has past and no action can be taken, you can stop your dramatization of the situation, good bye Arthur but remember I am counting your Reverts and will report you again in the future. I hope you can learn to participate in the community instead of just reverting, its really damaging to the spirit of this project. GG NO RE. --]<s>]</s> 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*No block. ] 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:no block)===
] violation on
{{Article|Robert Priddy}}. {{3RRV|SSS108}}:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert: ]
* 4th revert:
The interpretation of the arbcom ruling ]]] is now treated in a second arbitration case that was triggered by the edit war at ]. See ] Both ] and ] are parties in this second arbitration case. ] 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
: Comment: Only this edit is covered by the arbcomm case - the others appear to me to remove rather more than just unreliable sources and so are not covered. But that makes 3R by my count ] 20:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
*No unambiguous violation of 3RR, per Connolley. '''No block''' ] 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: Biophys commended) ===
] violation on
{{Article|Boris Stomakhin}}. {{3RRV|Biophys}}:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
Warning has been placed on the talk page. Violator refused to discuss any edits or changes. Matter was decided twice by Misplaced Pages administrators Alex bakharev and Mikka, violator didn't follow them.] 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:Biophys is commended for reverting edits in violation of our ] policy. Do not introduce poorly-sourced accusations of criminal activity into Misplaced Pages articles in the future. ] 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Note. ] continue inserting these poorly-sourced accusations in ] article. I am not sure which action would be appropriate. ] 15:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
::: ] continues inserting the poorly-sourced accusations in ] article and claims that his actions are "approved by Administrators". ] 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked Vf for 24h for re-inntroducing this material, given JKs determination above ] 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: Dear Jkelly, being blocked by William Connolley on the grounds of your determination of reverts by Biophys as valid, I would like to have your explanations on how you come to conclusion, being English and French speaker, that reverts by Biophys of Boris Stomakhin article are commended? Please explain why you consider Official Court Sentence on Russian language dated 20.11.2006 as unreliable source ? Also I would like to have your explanations on how you, person which doesn't speak Russian, evaluated the material in the reference? Vlad Fedorov.
===] and ] (appears to be same user) reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|Correlation does not imply causation}}. {{3RRV|4.240.183.104}} and {{3RRV|4.240.183.7}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
No prev-version, so not sure #1 is a revert. And since the anon is across an IP range, semi-protecting may well be easier if required ] 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
This user is insisting on deleting a peer-reviewed reference from the article and insists on labeling the topic pseudoscientific without providing outside sources for his claim. I've tried reasoning with him and I've attempted to address his concerns, but have had little success in getting him to talk things over before reverting. Thanks! ] 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (24h) ===
Article ], fourth re-insertion in one day of an NPOV tag. ] 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
* Taco325i is not a new editor, been contributing since July 05. ] 00:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I screwed up the original notice, but here's what I should have written anyway.
] reported by ] (Result:)
] violation on
{{Article|Kent_Hovind}}. {{3RRV|Taco325i}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
''' Comments:''' Warned on the talk page of Kent Hovind ]. ] 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
''' Comment ''' Six revert after being warned there and notified here.
*6th revert:
24h ] 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h each)===
] violation on
{{Article|Tenedos}}. {{3RRV|Rarelibra}}:
* Previous version reverted to: all 27 January
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
''' Comments:''' Four exact reversions of four different (the first and fourth only slightly different) proposals to do without a map which I deprecate as ugly and misleading, and which others have and . Rarelibra's last edit summary is: "you are violating the 3RR rule and purposely '''and selfishly''' removing the map)". I find the bolded part (my bold) strange; but it shows Rarelibra has excessive emotional involvement here. ] <small>]</small> 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
:Both of you broke the 3RR. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 04:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
::No, I did not; I offered three or four alternatives; two of them completely novel. None of them are the version Rarelibra insists on, but that's why the 3RR exists; to compel editors to offer alternatives. If he had, I would not have filed this complaint. ] <small>]</small> 04:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
:::In all of these alternatives, you still removed the map he was adding (, , , times). There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 04:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Both seem to have broken 3RR ovefr this ] 12:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (8h)===
] violation on {{Article|Martian Manhunter}} by {{3RRV|Arcayne}}:
*
**
**
*
**
**
;Comments
Not clear that these are all reverts ] 12:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, I forgot to show the second change. There were actually two original versions he was reverting from. His 2nd and 3rd revert were on a diffent paragraph (see "different section), and his 4th revert was with the initial page. ] 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
::User has not reverted in awhile, and said user is fairly new. Don't see a need to further punish since activity ended after 4th revert, upon notification that there was a policy against endless reverting. If I can, I withdrawal the report. ] 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:
''' Comments:''' I believe that he may have also violated 3RR in other articles such as ] and ]. --] 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
* He has done 9 simple reverts in the Cheka article: Same style as sockmaster and indefinitely banned ].] 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*Heres a diff of another 3RR warning I gave him before the 5th revert on this article in question: ] (]) 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*He's done at least <s>2</s> make that <s>3</s> 5 , for total of 10 more reverts at ] since this report was filed. ] (]) 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
**I've given him 24 hours. If you have evidence that he's a sock, please file a report at ], unless the evidence you have is particularly obvious, in which case you can take it to ]. ] also seems to have more than 3 reverts when responding to this user, so I've blocked him as well; do tell me if I've misread the situation. -- ] <small>(])</small> 22:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
::{{takenote}}Checkuser was "likely" . Also, I reported him to AIV and was told that's not the place for that. --] 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
''2007-01-27T22:10:15 Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ploughman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violations)'' ] 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|Attribution of recent climate change}}. {{3RRV|RonCram}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: has been blocked before for 3RR
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
Content dispute (he is wrong of course :-) spilled over 3R ] 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
{{]}}
* 4th revert:
{{]}}
:Comment: Please note that ] is the only one who has violated the policy here, by deleting sourced material that he claims is "unauthorized" (!) from the Mengistu article about 8 times against a consesnus of various edtiors. I was about to report Ploughman myself, but found this here already. ] (]) 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
''2007-01-27T22:10:15 Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ploughman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violations)'' ] 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
*Someone has to stop this Ploughman guy, he is a one-man edit-warring non-stop revert machine / likely banned sockpuppet, on wikipedia articles all over the place. Where are the admins? ] (]) 22:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
'''Comments:''' Killerman2 has violated the rule before. <!-- Optional -->
48h ] 22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:'''48H''')===
] violation on
{{Article|Surrealism}}. {{3RRV|Classicjupiter2}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
All-out edit war going unchecked. This user is adding spam, othe user is reverting it. Both are violating ]. Bother should be indefinately blocked, as they have been warned, and involved in mediation over this, but continue to behave this way despite effors of other editors to mentor them.
===] reported by ] (Result:24H)===
] violation on
{{Article|Surrealism}}. {{3RRV|TheEvilPanda}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
===] reported by ] (Result: 8 hours)===
] violation on
{{Article|Jiali}}. {{3RRV|Jerrypp772000}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up ] if you do not know what a diff is. -->
''' Comments:''' <He keeps adding Taiwan to all articles and deleting Republic of China or ROC to all articles. Now, this is wrong because Taiwan is administered by the ]. Also, it is clear that he is pushing a POV.>
:No, Mr or Ms Administrator, please see the talk page of it for more info.--] 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
He is in violation of the 3RRR and has continually done this. He has done it to articles where Republic of China was fine there and no one argued. He is inciting vandalism and disturbances with his crusade. -] 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:Actually we did argued in ]. And in my own talk page.--] 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
::I am talking about specific articles where Taiwan, Republic of China was present. And I did not do that. It was already like that. But you went in to delte Republic of China. Please read this English carefully. You dont seem to understand too well. -] 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:And in ] too, there was a 3rd opinion too, Mr or Ms Administrator.--] 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
</pre>
8h. But next time diffs not version please ] 12:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
''' Comments:''' The user reverted a well-referenced section at the top of the article three times, despite ongoing discussions on the ]. The portion of text being reverted is well sourced, and thus far the ongoing discussions on the Talk page show two editors against the edit, and one (Shamir1) in favor – far from consensus. I consider the basis for the continued reverts to be Shamir1's original research, as discussed on said Talk page. The user is not new, and, based on their Talk archive, has been warned two to three times about violating the 3RR already in other instances. — ]<sup> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Only 3 at best. No block ] 12:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:Why isn't this called the 4RR? :) The user seems to have stopped, at least for now, so I'm hopeful we can work this issue out through discussion or mediation and avoid a full out edit-war. Thanks for your consideration of the issue in any event. — ]<sup> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Becase you may revert at most *3* times in 24h - so you need *4* for a breach ] 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hr)===
] violation on
{{Article|Muhammad}}. {{3RRV|Bbarnett}}:
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* Warning:
''' Comments:'''
User was blocked by ]. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h)===
] violation on
{{Article|TextPad}}. {{3RRV|124.168.17.252}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning: ({{tl|uw-3rr3}}); ({{tl|uw-3rr4}})
'''Comments:''' Edit was a change of a seemingly reasonable statement on ] to something less accurate and in contradiction with the cited reference; reverts are reinstatements of this edit.
24h ] 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: no block)===
] violation on
{{Article|Empire State Express}}. {{3RRV|Oxyman}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
'''Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
User has been copy & pasting the same anti-American comment on several article and user pages that is currently on ]. Reverting to POV edits made with no citations, claiming that current versions are "propaganda."
D oesn't look like 4R to me, but then since you didn't bother to list them, who knows which edits you have in mind? ] 12:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert: 02:34, 28 January 2007
* 2nd revert: 04:17, 28 January 2007
* 3rd revert: 04:27, 28 January 2007
* 4th revert: 09:06, 28 January 2007
* <s>5th revert: 09:06, 28 January 2007</s> <small>struck by admin: same edit as 4th</small>
'''Comment:''' The user is removing paragraphs of sourced information in favor of his own , claiming that his references are more valid, cause the others are translations and the total number of reference notes are less than his own .
The user had already been warned in the talk/discussion page and edit summaries by different users . On the other hand, his contribution's history/summary reveals that he's stalking ]'s contributions. He was warned on this , too. However, he's still reverting the article. ] 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''admin note'''. Clearly four reverts (the fifth seems a mistake on the filer's part). The reverter has been blocked for 3RR before. ] 19:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ]===
] violation on
{{Article|Freemasonry}}. {{3RRV|Blueboar}}:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
*8th revert:
*9th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
'''Comments:''' The user claims that the 3RR does not apply because he believed the edits to be ] but looking at the edits they clearly seem to be a content dispute over an image in the article.--] 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
::An anonymous User was making edits that were POV, and was called out by other editors. Then tried inserting images, taking down images, and reverting when the issues were under discussion. The User trid to create a gallery over images which were being discussed, and asked to stop several times. Then the anonymous User started to mimic myself and another editor. I don't see how 3RR applies when an anonymous user insists on changing content other editors have specifically asked them to leave alone instead of discussing it and coming to consensus. --] 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a content dispute to me. 12h each ] 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
'''Comments:''' <!-- Optional --> Please look at user jerry's contributions. He has been committed to removing all Republic of China or ROC terms from all Taiwan/Republic of China articles. Now it is a reality and fact that the ] governs ]. Please look at these two articles if you are unclear about the situation. Now, Jerry keeps removing these terms without any discussion or consent and accuses others of not discussing when reverting. -] 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:The same pattern occurs here in this article: Chuang Chia-jung. Look closely at the history of Jerry's edits. It was originally Republic of China, but he changed it to just Taiwan without any first dicussion and started a huge edit war. -] 00:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, but I ''did'' discuss first with Nationalist. Mr or Ms Administrator, I think this new editor should read ].--] 00:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
::Again he is trying to make up excuses. Some articles included Republic of China long time ago, but jerry came along and deleted all instances of Republic of China. Also for article: Guantian, Tainan. In the history u can see that he changed Chen Shui-bian from being President of the Republic of China to President of Taiwan. There is definitely political motivation. The fact is that Chen is president of the Republic of China -] 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:Mr or Ms Administrator, the president of ROC is commonly known as president of Taiwan. And there is a third opinion in ], which ] and ] are ignoring.--] 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop making up excuses. The Republic of China is not equal to Taiwan. It is not commonly known as Taiwan. Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. Please see ] and ]. -] 02:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5rd revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7rd revert:
* 8th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
'''Comments:''' The talk page 3RR warning occured after the edit war but I thought it would only be fair to report this as I had already reported ] above. Perhaps a strong warning on the user's talk page from an administrator is enough to convince him to stop this activity.--] 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
12h each ] 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|Carl "CJ" Johnson}}. {{3RRV|Sean mc sean}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to. For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st Revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
'''Comments:''' His edits have been explained to be irrelevant and a spam link, yet he persists to add the deemed spam link.
'''Comment:''' I changed the diffs to clarify.--]] 04:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|Gog and Magog}}. {{3RRV|Seek equilibrium}}:
* Previous version reverted to: by ]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
'''Comments:''' The violator has been given a chance to self-revert but chose to poke fun instead. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Not clear why first is a revert ] 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)(Result: protected)===
] violation on
{{Article|Middle East Media Research Institute}}. {{3RRV|Beelzebarn}}:
* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
::This was not a revert. Isarig was mistaken. ] 16:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* Diff of 3RR warning:
'''Comments:''' There is an ongoing editwar on ] in which ] is taking part reverting ]'s edit twice. There was an ANI about Isarig's behaviour on 3rd January 2007, but he now seems to have returned to his conforntational behaviour of POV pushing, edit warring and in this case biting a newcomer. ] 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Not obvious why #1 is a revert. But anyway this seems to be a multi-side war, so I've protected the page ] 21:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:It's not clear?? It restored the paragraph that begins with "A controversy arose over MEMRI's ...", which was added by csloat, and subsequently removed by numerous editors (Elizmr, Armon, and myself). It is a very clear cut case of 3RR. ] 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:: So it was. Well, the page is protected so it doesn't matter ] 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (no block) ===
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
'''Comment:''' The user reproached me for blanking contents because I disliked it yesterday on article ], he also claimed my sources to be far superior than another reverted, I had explained my reason, but rejected by him and refused to went on for a discussion before making reverts. One revert edit without edit summaries, and I reverted it, thus made it 4th. ] 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:I cannot see a three-revert violation. Those reverts are 31 hours apart and this one is not even a revert - I can only see wikifications and reference format cleanup. For the three-revert rule to be broken the reverts have to constitute the removal/addition of the same info. Plus I don't understand why some of your diffs are showing up differently: This is the one that you cited , but this is the true edit - am I missing something? ] 20:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be just a revenge report; "rv"s 1 & 4 are the same, anyway. No block ] 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (2nd) (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|Muhammad}}. {{3RRV|Bbarnett}}:
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* Warning: User has just gotten off of 24H block for 6 reverts made previously
''' Comments:'''
* Suggest longer block to get the message through
::On his fourth revert I explained to this individual that it would be a good idea to self-revert to avoid facing a 3RR block but the response I recieved was less than harmonious with how Misplaced Pages works. This individual continues to revert across multiple editors. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning:
-->
'''Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->
</pre>
Note on completing a 3RR report:
* Copy the template above, the text within but not including <nowiki><pre>...</pre></nowiki>
* Replace <nowiki>http://DIFFS</nowiki> with a link to the ] and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
* We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace <nowiki>http://VersionLink</nowiki> with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
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.
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.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 January 2025)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments: The user was warned multiple times to not insert poorly sourcedcontentious material in a page which is a living person's biography. Despite this, the user has continued to insert original research, while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.
I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: he removed my warning for whatever reason
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I edited Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
WP:AVOIDEDITWAR This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. NotQualified (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They have been warned before about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024 (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of Reform UK abuse scandal, amongst other things. James McMurdock#Assault conviction
Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE."
Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
I add templates to an article with faults
The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
I notify the user
I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."
It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. MrOllie (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article 'heritability of IQ' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user CNMall41 has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. Shecose (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
Comments:
Taken from the ANI report i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
Ger2024 has been Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and violated WP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly WP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them to not engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think WP:SPA might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within 38 minutes after being inactive since May 18th, 2024 based off their user contributions history.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "←Created page with '== January 2025 == Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You didn't read the MOS:TVCAST carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user was not following the MOS:TVCAST correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Update this page
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Blocked – for a period of 3 years The range 5.187.0.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) by Ahect Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
