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

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

Revision as of 22:42, 30 July 2007 editArcticocean (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,266 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:Blocked, 20 hours): blocked, 20 hours← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:39, 9 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,957 editsm Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive491) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{pp-move\|small=yes}}</noinclude>
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]

			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	<noinclude><center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.<br/>Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.'''</center>
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Archive%(counter)d
	\|counter = 51
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\|counter = 491
			\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
	}}</noinclude>		}}</noinclude>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
	]
	==Violations==
	Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.

	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 Hours - per by ])===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Stargate_SG-1}}. {{3RRV\|Robinepowell}}: Time reported: 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: Something a long way back, this edit war has been going on for some time. These are the most recent reverts:

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	This user has repeated replaced "Vancouver, Canada" with "Vancouver, British Columbia" despite multiple users reverting and requesting discussion. --] 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 48 hours)===
	*] violation on {{Article\|Ben 10}}

	*I added a minor edit to a section title, making it easier to find information contained within a sub-page in ]. ] has continually reverted it to what he has decided is 'correct' without getting any other reader's feedback. He then threatened me twice, which is shown on my IP address user page. I responded to his threats saying that I was making a usability change and that he was not the sole editor of the entry. If you look through the entry's history you'll see that ] has reverted many, many people's entries whenever he doesn't like them. {{IPuser\|66.92.74.246}} 07:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	**'''Note:''' Please show diffs. ] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 08:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	**'''Note:''' This is for 3RR violations only, for simple vandalism complants, please go to ]. ] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 08:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	**'''Note:''' The "Threats" mentioned by the IP are UW warning templates. ] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 08:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	**'''Note:''' {{3RRV\|Someguy0830}} was issued a 3RR warning: . ] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 08:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	::*'''Blocked''' – {{3RRV\|Someguy0830}} has been blocked for 2 days for a serious, second-time breach of the ]. This was partly due to the information given here; however, in future please fill out a request here as directed at the bottom of the page, or your report may be ignored ~ ] 13:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::*Please see also the reverse - the IP's broken the rule and properly warned too. (See ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::*The page has been fully-], pending ] (which will now be advised for both the IP and account) ~ ] 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::*'''Blocked''' – the IP has been blocked for 10 hours, for a ] violation ~ ] 18:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: No block)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Monarchy in Canada}}. {{3RRV\|G2bambino}}: Time reported: 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: in first two reverts. Otherwise, see the individual reverts.

	*1st revert: , to 18:47, 27 July
	*2nd revert: , to 18:47, 27 July (then a consecutive edit, 12:55, 28 July)
	*3rd revert: , to (then further consecutive edits to 17:01)
	*4th revert: , to (then further consecutive edits to 17:22)
	*5th revert: (well after this report was first made, and notice of it )

	**'''Note:''' {{3RRV\|G2bambino}} was not issued a 3RR warning, only informed that he was reported. ] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	***'''Note''' The other users (] and ]) were performing direct, unreasoned, undiscussed, and abbrasive reverts of mostly long-standing material, lacking any demonstration of cooperation. In the meantime I have tried to address JDM's concerns after he finally provided some reasoning at ]. Lonewolf, I suspect, has been attempting to entrap me in a 3RR breach. Anyway, I'll consider this the warning that was never placed on my talk. --] 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	***Only new users have to be warned. Experienced users are expected to know the rules. --] 23:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	***Indeed. A user that has been blocked less than 2 weeks ago for ] should know the rules.--] 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	****Well, I hope the complexity of this matter will be taken into consideration; ie. each and every edit by all three parties involved. I hope it will then be seen that I was indeed working to protect the content from mostly counter-policy, unexplained, tag-team reverts, and after each of my own reverts immediately worked properly, unlike the other users' blatant deletions, to reword the content to address the concerns of one of the other users. I have, in fact, seemed to have now placated ], thus, I hope, resolving the issue. --] 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	* Article protected for one week. Enjoy your weekend, gentlemen, and loom for common ground before resuming editing. If further edit-wars ensue, I will not hesitate to block all participants. ] <small>]</small> 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Chihuahua (dog)}}. {{3RRV\|DavidShankBone}}
	*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
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*{{3RRV\|DavidShankBone}} was warned about behavior but continues to revert to an image of his own silly looking dog, which he claims is a "champion chihuahua" ] 22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	**'''Note:''' {{3RRV\|DavidShankBone}} was not issued a 3RR warning. ] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 22:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

	WJBscribe already decided on this report. Chichichihua, keep putting it back until you get the answer you want, and it's you that's likely to be blocked for disruption. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	this is a new report, this user continued reverting after the last warning from wjbscribe ] 06:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	*It is my belief that ] is only interested in disruptive behavior. First, this editor continually tried to replace the on the ] page with . It is interesting that out of all the photographs this editor could have chosen from the other Chihuahuas on the page, they chose the very photograph that the ] page discuss in particular as being one of the poorer quality images. Not only is there consensus about the lead, there is consensus on the Talk page to '''not use''' the photograph ] wants to use. Then this editor canvassed the editor who uploaded the photograph, who is now also engaging in an edit war. This editor has been warned on their talk page, has been warned by an admin about edit warring, and continues their disruptive behavior. I would like to point out that this behavior is similar to my months-long battle with an IP troll, who is now a --] 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	whatever. this is plain and simple four reverts in 24 hours to put up a picture of your pet which isn't even a pure chihuahua! you were given the benefit of the doubt before but now you are just revert warring. ] 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	:I concur completely with David's assessment of the situation. It is not a simple case of him reverting to his own pet image either, for the above reasons, and that I also have undone Chichichihua's disruptive edits on the article several times. Reverting an obvious vandal is not a violation of the 3RR. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	::Yeah I'll go with David and Van Tuckey, both of whom have considerable better edit histories than Chichichihua in this case. David strikes me as a good faith editor with knowledge of chihuahuas, so edit away, mate, ] 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	]
	according to the vandalism page, '''Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.''' is putting this image up compromising the integrity of wikipedia? anyone would recognize it as a chihuahua. ] 03:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

	It is a compromise of Misplaced Pages's integrity when you choose an image that has been decided though consensus to be unsuitable, and repeatedly add it without a single reasonable attempt to create a new consensus about it. Repeatedly adding counterproductive, low-quality images without any discussion is disruptive to say the least. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

	sorry vantucky, your definition of vandalism is not what i see on the policy page. it also doesn't describe the situation. there is at least one other user which supports using the image to the right over the boston terrier mix that is there now. you know this because you've reverted his work. here's when to apply the "vandalism" exception: according to 3rr reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking -- this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. ] 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	*'''] has now''': 1. Edit warred; 2. been incivil; 3. removed an admins remarks on this noticeboard; 4. canvassed; 5. disregarded all attempts at civil engagement; 6. plastered an image on at least three pages; and 7. been told they are being disruptive on the admin board by bringing up multiple 3RR cases. Could an admin address this editor's disruptive behavior, please? --] 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Ottoman_Armenian_casualties}}. {{3RRV\|Flavius_Belisarius}}: Time reported: 05:16, 29 July 2007 (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
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*{{3RRV\|Flavius_Belisarius}} has already been blocked 48 hours, for revert warring
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	The first revert was a revert of ], who is a sock of the banned ]. Reversions of banned editors do not count toward the three-revert rule. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	===]/] reported by ] (Result:blocks)===
	*] violation on {{Article\|Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz}}. {{3RRV\|Chubeat8}}/{{3RRV\|216.198.139.38}}: Time reported: 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diffs of 3RR warnings:

	*That these are the same user, already transparent, is clearly demonstrated here: Note the "KAWAKIBI" identity in addition to Chubeat; also "Jean-François Lafleure." Besides the multiple identities and revert spree, this user has been very uncivil to all; see ], . Based on my limited contact with this individual, it seems most unlikely that he/she will ever be a productive contributor.] 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	::'''Note:''' This page is for reporting 3RR violations only, for reporting suspected sockpuppets or suspected use of sockpuppets, please go to ]. --] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Nat.tang, it is a 3RR report. Anon does not hide that he/she is Chubeat8 (among others):.] 05:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::If that is the case, go and find an admin and he or she will probably block the user for distruptive editing and sockpuppetry. ] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 05:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::This is one of the Administrators' noticeboards.] 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	*Update: For whatever reason, Nat.tang opened ] on this obvious case, which was, of course, "confirmed."] 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
	*That is pretty obvious. The user is blocked, and I blocked the ip for disruptive edit-warring. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	===] reported by ] (Result:48h)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka}}. {{3RRV\|Snowolfd4}}: Time reported: 06:09, 29 July 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
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
	*Previous version reverted to:
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*In the first two edits he reverts in (as he admits "for the umpteenth time") the description "pro-LTTE" to describe the Tamil daily ''Uthayan''. The next three are simple reversions of other editors' edits, using the "undo" feature. He has been blocked several times before for 3RR, so he's well aware of the policy. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	*Unless you haven't noted, the first two reverts were clearly adding cited content back to the article (the words "pro-LTTE" are directly used in the citation), and ], who removed the words while making grammatical edits had no objections in me adding them back. --] <sup>( ] / ] )</sup> 06:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	**'''Note:''' This is not the place to be discussing a dispute, please continue discussion elsewhere such as a user talk page. ] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 06:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	***Three reverts are three reverts, it was clearly not a revertion of a simple vandalism. I gave 48h as it is not the first 3RR block of the user ] 06:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::This is unfair. A simple 1 or 2 hr block would have sufficed considering the circumstances. Jayjg's behaviour has been despicable and he's insisting on things that come across as extraordinarily ridiculous and weird. He is making up his own policies on the fly and trying to browbeat editors there. ] 06:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::::He didn't make up ]. ] 07:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I didnt say he was making up WP:3RR. I was only saying that rapping snowolf for some grammar mistakes and for reverting vandalism is hardly fair. ] 07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	Taking a closer look, there ''really'' is no 5 reverts at all! There are only 3 reverts that can be seen as revert warring. The first two are actually two edits in a series of edits by multiple editors and was done only to fix the grammar. What happened was Black Falcon removed a part of the sentence because it was not grammatically correct. Snowolf fixed the grammar and brought it back. It took a couple of edits to do this and even Black Falcon didnt complain!! Jayjg presenting it as part of revert warring on snowolf's part is downright despicable. I request the admins to unblock snowolf. ] 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:: No, it was 5 reverts. 3 were done to revert the Lead paragraph to the user's earlier edit. The other 2 was done to put the article to what the user has edited to earlier. So, in essence, eventhough he did not directly revert the same paragraph, the user reverted the article to what he had written earlier 5 times. Sarvaganya, please refrain from attacking other editors. Please read ] and do not make statements like "Jayjg's behaviour has been despicable and he's insisting on things that come across as extraordinarily ridiculous and weird. He is making up his own policies on the fly and trying to browbeat editors there". PS.Jayjg did not block user. He followed wikipedia procedures. Thanks ] 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:Discussion moved to ])===
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	{{Article\|Talk:Straw-bale construction}}. {{3RRV\|Hu12}}: Time reported: 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

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

	<!-- 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
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*This is an attempt by me to organize a poll. I request that those responding keep their vote separate from the discussion (i.e., vote in one section and discuss in another). After the discussion begins to get going in the "Poll" section, I simply remove the discussion to a discussion section, above. He ignores my explanation and reverts. I continue to try to explain he continues to revert, with malice (e.g., ordering me: "DO NOT REMOVE other people's cmments!" (which I didn't) and to "CEASE refactoring other peoples commentss"). In the process, the poll is completely disrupted. ] 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
	**Umm...just a FYI...Hu12's an sysop, so blocking him would be fruitless...because he could simply unblock himself. ] <sup> ] \| ] \| ]</sup> 09:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	::→ I think this was done to make a ] and Very likley a ]
	::→ ''<u>See also</u>: ] <br>
	::→ ''<u>See also</u>: ]<br>
	::→ ''<u>See also</u>: ] <br>
	::→ ''<u>See also</u>: ]

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	::Revisions to remove ] do no violate the Three-revert rule and are the Exception to ]. Under '''Discussion page vandalism''' Where ''"An obvious exception would be moving posts to a proper place''"<small></small>. this was not at all the case with ] edits. ] was <u>intentionaly moving discussions ''away'' from their intended place</u> (see below for diffs), and in doing so is considered vandalism. Even after repeated attempts in edit summaries, and in discussion to prevent the removal of these discussions, this behavior continued. I'll add also, based on the direction of consensus currently (based on policies ] and ]), which is opposite of ]'s position) this may even qualify as possibly Sneaky vandalism, which involves reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the consensus/poll process, as there seems to no other legitamate reason for the actions. --] 10:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
			:{{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) ==
	::*] violation by ] on {{Article\|Talk:Straw-bale construction}}.
	::*1st revert:
	::*2nd revert:
	::*3rd revert:
	::*4th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	::Being active in the discussion portion of the page, and being the one reverting the vandalism, it would be more appropriate for another sysop to make the block. Obviously this was prompted by the filing of ]. It is worth noting that ] has been blocked in the past for making ]. Thank you--] 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}
	:::Discussion continues here – ]. — ] ] 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::::Two brief observations on what Hu12 has said:
	::::#It is curious that he now thinks that I've violated ]. When he made a report at ] he said that I was "dangerously becomming close to a 3RR violation ." (i.e., not a 3RR violation). I have made no edits to the page in question since then.
	::::#Point taken that a block might not be feasible since he is an admin. However, his actions do require some sort of sanction, IMO. I have no wish to escalate this further, so my report here will stand. ] 17:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 24h)===
			# (31 December 2024)
	*] violation on
			# (6 January 2024)
	{{Article\|Family First Party}}. {{3RRV\|203.87.127.18}}: Time reported: 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

	*1st ~~revert~~:		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	:Soft blocked for now. Next time please include the DIFFTIME.--] 12:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked 24h)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Godzilla: Unleashed}}. {{3RRV\|SG-17}}: Time reported: 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:

	] keeps putting a vehicle section on the ''Godzilla: Unleashed'' page that is not needed and not important and he thinks if he puts sources, the section says. But the section is not important and keeps ignoring my warnings that I will report him. The Godzilla pages do not have a section that talks about vehicles in the game. --] 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result: No Action see comment)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Professional_wrestling_aerial_techniques}}. {{3RRV\|Timber99}}: Time reported: 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			<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 />
	*Previous version reverted to:

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
			: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)
	For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
			::{{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)
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
	*1st revert: User blanked page
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	] has no other contributions other than the blanking of the Professional wrestling aerial techniques page, and then the undoing of each revert I had made to put the page back to my last edit. User account was created exactly 1 hour after I made an edit to this page, and user blanked the page 3 minutes after my edit posted. After I undid user's revision, Timber99 undid my version to the version prior to my original edit. I had stated on the talk page that I did not want an edit war, afterwhich Timber99 accused me of attacking them. I had added valid content which was sourced, unlike much of the content on that page, including the version they keep reverting to. The section I added was well-sourced, but the section Timber99 keeps reverting to contains 1 source which appears to be from a fan page. Timber99 feels I need to prove my information using reliable sources, while they defend the current content which contains one non-reliable source. If it needs to go to a review I am confident that my edit should stand. ] 22:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	:I initially indef blocked Timber99 as a vandal based on his first couple of edits but when I went back to check I realised that this was an editing dispute with a new user who was finding the interface a struggle. I have therefore rescinded the block with apologies. Had I done my homework I would have simply said editing dispute seems to have moved to talk page. No further action required. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	::I left this on your Talk page as well: Hey Spartaz, as I am sure you are aware there was a problem with the new user ] on the page ]. In the event that this user continued to revert the edits that I made to a move with references. I saw you initially blocked him, then unblocked him feeling that it went to a Talk page... however he again not only reverted the page again (after your reverted back to my edit), he added this to my talk page:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	''"According to what you wrote on my page, there is a rule about making an edit which goes back to anold version more than 3 times in 24 hours. You're currently at 3 so im giving u aheads up. please be more careful in the future not to engage in "edit wars." i explained on talk page why it is important to get a discussion going about this change ebfore it is made"''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Furthermore, he continues to refuse to sign any of his messages and it seems as though this is a user may be a sockpuppet who created this account in order to not blemish his own user account. Not accusing, although he/she seems to know a little more than the regular 'novice' user. Could you please help me with this situation, because it is getting ridiculous. Also note, there are absolutely no edits made by Timber99 other than reverting my edits on a well thought out & referenced change made by me. I did everything possible including adding a friendly Welcome tag to his talk page, and tried to discuss the issue... Please help!!! ] 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	: Note to other admins, I have this in hand. Both editors are quite new and need some guidence. No further action required at 3RR. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:)===
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka}}. {{3RRV\|Watchdogb}}: Time reported: 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	No warn given since this user was blocked for disruptive editing two times previously.
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	This user has performed more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour in ] page as a clear violation of ]. --] ]</sup> 00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:: The 3rd evidence you have shown is not a revert. I took that off because it was there from before and no reason was given. Also there was another Totally disputed tags above that one. This is not violating 3 RR because I only reverted 2 edits that other editors thought were redundant and POV. The last revert was on a the fact that there was allready a disputed tags put on the opening paragraph of the body of the article ] 00:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	::: Whats the point in having 2 "The neurality and accuracy of this article is disputed" in the same article ? Taking that off is not reverting.... It's called cleaning up the article. Thanks ] 01:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			#
	::Rules say "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". However, I have only reverted 3 times (2 of same material and 1 of a different). The 3 revert given on this evidence is not a revert... It is clean up of the article. ] 01:11, 30 July 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:'''
	:::A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, you undid the insertion of the tag twice and undid the insertion of the sentence twice that makes four reverts within 24 hours neither of which was reverting simple vandalism. If you were cleaning up the article then you have to state that in the edit summary or in talkpage. But not in this way.--] ]</sup> 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:::: No, I only reverted the tags ONCE thus bringing the total of reverts to 3. Also note '''Abuse of tags'''. There was actually 3 Totally disputed tags applied to the article. One was taken off but 2 remained. That's why I deleted it. How can an article be placed with 2 of these tags ? As it clearly says "This articles..." ] 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Pleae see vandalism. Abusing the tags are vandalism.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	:::::If you think that adding several {{tl\|TotallyDisputed}} to the article is tag abusing then you could replace them with {{tl\|Totally-disputed-section}}. After someone make a 3RR report, crying over here to justify your edits doesn't make any sense.--] ]</sup> 04:56, 30 July 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)
	::::::Reverting is undoing another editors contributions, which is what you did '''twice''' in removing the tags. And this is not the proper way to say '' I'm gonna remove the tags since they are duplications;
	::::::::''13:32, July 29, 2007 Watchdogb (Talk \| contribs) (8,232 bytes) (→Involuntary disappearances - whats disputed here ? Check discussion''
	::::::::''22:57, July 29, 2007 Watchdogb (Talk \| contribs) (8,142 bytes) (Undid revision 147939377 by Lahiru k (talk)what does LTTE have to do with the allegation by AHRC? Care to discuss please ?)''
	::::::Hope you understand everything very clearly. --] ]</sup> 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			: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)
	:::''Example'' :] --] ]</sup> 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	One quick look at that talk page will explain why that tag was added. And in any case, this is a open and shut case of violating 3RR. If snowolf can be blocked 48 hrs for correcting grammar, then I feel watchdog deserves a longer block for revert warring with content. ] 01:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	:Actually, there is not violation in taking off vandalism. Please take a look at abusing the tags. I left that on the edit summery as ] and did not want to call anyone a Vandal. I asked why it was disputed so that if someone can provide reason then its better to add "section is disputed tags" or "Fact" tags. Thats why I asked for a discussion so that I can add proper tags so that the article can be fixed ] 01:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	::Please take a look at this Even he thinks its not addressed. Thus he took it off also. This is also clean up as mine was. Check his edit summery '' rm disputed tags. If there are specific issues to be addressed, please explain in talk ''. Thanks ] 02:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:::Now it's too late. Werther you explained rolling on floor doesn't make any sense since you have violated the basics of ];
	:::<blockquote>An editor '''must not''' perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.</blockquote>
	:::In ] Snowolfd4 blocked for 48h just for fixing grammar. There even you made a comment. So hope you understand the policy even better than me. --] ]</sup> 04:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::: User snowolfd4 did more than "fix grammar" he reverted. He was not removing vandalism. However, I was. If you see an earlier version where there are 3 "This article is disputed" tags. This is blalent abuse of the tags. One was taken off but the user who took off one forgot to take off another. So, I came along to fix it thats it. ] 11:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	There is no violation here. The 2nd and 3rd reverts are consecutive edits by the same user, which according to ], is to be considered an one revert. So, there are only 3 reverts. Policy states:
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	''Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule''
			## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
	] 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			## {{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:'''
	===] reported by ]===
			# {{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:'''
	*] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
	{{Article\|The Rocky Horror Picture Show}}. {{3RRV\|Amadscientist}}: Time reported: 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	*Previous version reverted to:
	*First reversion: and (No edit summaries; though he did not directly revert the edit the was identical to a revert, except for a small addition)
	*Second reversion: (The consensus on the talk page and the consensus achieved after your edit war)
	*Third reversion: (No edit summary)
	*Fourth reversion: (I gave my reason previously. It has not changed. After the first edit back you should have left it and attempted to change the consensus. You are edit warring.)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	I warned him in my edit summary of my third revert that we had both reached our limit. In the words of ], "this is clearly one of the silliest edit-wars ever," but Amadscientist seems unwilling to compromise with me. ] 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I would not normally comment on this sort of thing, but I believe it should be pointed out that ] is simply not editing in good faith. He made an edit that went against consensus. I edited it back to where it was and went to the talk page where he immediately accused me of both personal attacks and being uncivil. He clearly has returned to the page to start a second edit war and his first edit summery bears this out. I believe Atropos should be blocked from editing on the page as purposely being disruptive. I have attempted to start a discussion on the subject to see if consensus has changed and followed Wiki suggestion of creating a poll to gauge editors opinions. This was then called "disjointing (the) discussion".

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	::I believe it is the purpose of this member to create a problem and go against Wiki policy himself to bait me into changes to report me for 3RR violation. But I will abide by any decision reached of course.--] 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	:::I have tried to explain how consensus develops to this user; I even placed the flowchart at the policy page directly in the article. Him and another user had previously agreed that a cast section was unnecessary, I disagreed. He blew it into this out of control issue. Further, if I was baiting him to break the 3RR, I wouldn't've specifically warned him that he would break it if he reverted again. None of this is actually relevant, as he has clearly and knowingly violated the 3RR. He has a history of doing so; in addition to what Kww mentioned he broke the 3RR at ]. ] 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:Just to point it out, this is the second time that amadscientist has violated 3RR on this article. The first time (June 13, 2007), he was rewarded by getting the article protected for a week while he threw a tantrum. Hopefully, this time you will block him for a while and get him off of that high horse that he rides so well.] 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	::That is simply not true. I have never been found to violate the 3RR rule. What he means is that he reported me once before over the same article. No action was taken. I believed it was a wrangling attempt then, as I do now. Also, as I remember the article was protected a second week due to "Edit warring and refusal to discuss it on the talk page". I know I made every attempt to discuss the problem on the talk page, but even after a week I was accused of "Holding the article hostage".--] 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::That you did it is documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=138064070
	:::That you weren't punished for it is the reason that we are back here today. ] 10:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	::That you don't understand the difference between accusing someone and their being found guilty, as well as an obvious vendetta is why '''You''' are here. As for my "high horse" it certainly is far lower than yours. While there certainly were enough lessons to learn from the last situation, just who learned what would be a very good question to ask. I leave this in the hands of admin. This thread is long enough.--] 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hour block)===
	FYI: This user is the same as ] (blocked for vandalism), and ], as well as ] (and possibly others). ] 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on
			#
	{{Article\|Church of Christ (Temple Lot)}}. {{3RRV\|69.154.18.251}}. Time Reported: 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: one without a certain link reporting Jordan Smith as the individual who engaged in arson.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*1st revert: (as ])
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	User has also removed comments about their reverts on the talk page:
	*

			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.
	I have discussed edits on the talk page, as well as encouraged this user to provide reasoning for why he is reverting the content in question, but he has declined to discuss his reverts on the article's talk page. ] 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	This is not exactly related, but it appears that these users are the same individual that was convicted of the arson talked about in the article, and it may be entirely inappropriate for him to be editing this section to begin with. ] 04:39, 30 July 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)
	This user has also engaged in extensive name-calling, as his edit history (and that of his other usernames) will show. ] 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	*It may be worth noting, OTRS has gotten involved on this. So the 3RR block, if there is one, should be short to allow the user to follow through with our suggestions. ] 09:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	**24 hour block.

			:]
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)===
			:"""
	*] violation on
			:] 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)
	{{Article\|Alex Jones (radio)}}. {{3RRV\|Gobuffs10}}: Time reported: 07:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:""" ] (]) 01:50, 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. 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)
	*Previous version reverted to:
			::"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 ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
			::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
			::"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) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	:*'''Blocked''' – 24 hours, for a violation of ] ~ ] 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 20 hours)===

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Hebron}}. {{3RRV\|Jaakobou}}: Time reported: 08:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: (Note especially the paragraph which begins "The ] reports ".)
			# {{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:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning: , with further discussion .
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
	This user doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of the 3RR, despite repeated attempts at explanation. ] 08:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* '''comment''' - (1) i've opened a about this material. (2) a couple of the editors have been uncivil in commentary and possibly POV pushing by removing referenced relevant material. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 08:33, 30 July 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)
	:As I said, the user doesn't seem to have grasped the concept of the 3RR. On an unrelated point, I believe that User:Jaakobou has confused exasperation with incivility. ] 08:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	* '''comment''' - ], being disruptive<sup></sup>, and rude<sup>, </sup> cannot be excused as "exasperation". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 09:11, 30 July 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) ==
	:'''Comment''': ] is trying to conflate a content dispute with a policy violation. I maintain that he doesn't seem to understand the concept of the 3RR, and will add that his behaviour in this discussion has been sadly typical of his general behaviour on Misplaced Pages.
	:I'm a bit puzzled that no-one has addressed the 3RR violation as of yet. ] 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	::'''Comment'''- i'm a bit puzzled by your style of personal attacks and accusations of ''"typical general behaviour on Misplaced Pages"'' , being uncivil is by no means helpful to the wiki project. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::I'm not going to continue this discussion here. I'll reiterate my request that someone address the 3RR violation. ] 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	* '''comment''' - i've reached a certain level of consensus with another editor on this disputed material that the material in itself is relevant, only that the phrasing needs amendment to make the connection to the article more evident.<sup>] (link)</sup> <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	:That's an interesting point, but it doesn't justify the 3RR violation. ] 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::*'''Blocked''' – 20 hours, for a violation of ] ~ ] 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:No action taken)===
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
	*] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	]. {{User:Traffic Demon}}: Time reported: 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	*Previous version reverted to:


	<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the 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
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	* This user has repeatedly insisted on reverting the edits of at least 3 others and has been against forming consensus or taking a vote. Although he has participated in discussion on the ], he has only used the discussion to insist that he will not change his mind.] 15:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	:*'''No action taken''' – the links provided were from several days ago; as blocks are ], not ], I'm not going to issue a block at this time ~ ] 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, but I was listing the first of about 15 reverted edits that were made. Check it out.] 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Corner Gas}}. {{3RRV\|68.149.47.144}}: Time reported: 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Previous version reverted to:
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	This is an ongoing thing, but the reverts I listed are within the last 24 hours. (Apologies if I did something wrong; this is my first time reporting one of these.) ] 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	:No, you did great; the only thing outstanding is that you're meant to give the time each of the links above occurred, by adding 00:00 01 January 2007 to the end (replacing with a space, obviously. Not that it matters - most Administrators will double check the times anyway; so, '''IP Blocked''' – 10 hours, for a ] violation ~ ] 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:Already blocked)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|David Irving}}. {{3RRV\|66.131.139.158}}: Time reported: 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Previous version reverted to:
			# {{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:'''
	<!-- 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
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
	Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	The anon user is already blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

	===] reported by ] (Result:No violation; page protected)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Social apartheid}}. {{3RRV\|Jayjg}}: Time reported: 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	I'm not sure how to do this but if you look at the history of ] you'll see that Jayjg reverted at 17:42, 30 July 2007, 19:21, 30 July 2007, 20:45, 30 July 2007 and 20:55, 30 July 2007 Jayjg.
	:The first one was not a revert, and the page has been protected now by ]. In fact, it was protected before you made your report. ] ] 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Gene Tierney}}. {{3RRV\|68.167.65.63}}: Time reported: 21:50, 30 July 2007 (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 ] 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)
	i, too, may be in violation, because i didn't realise this has been going on since yesterday when i made the changes today.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}
	Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	:*'''Blocked''' – 10 hours, for a ] violation ~ ] 22:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	===] reported by ] (Result:Blocked, 14 hours)===
			# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
	*] violation on
			# "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."
	{{Article\|Gothic chess}}. {{3RRV\|GothicEnthusiast}}: Time reported: 22:18, 30 July 2007 (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."
			# "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)"

	Continual unexplained/unjustified removal of section tags (that I added to promote discussion of the section's contents).

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*1st revert:
			#: "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."
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:		# "Lady Saso: Reply"
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
	:*'''Blocked''' – 14 hours, for a serious violation of ] ~ ] 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<noinclude>== Example ==
			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.
	<pre>
	===] reported by ] (Result:)===
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

			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:

			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.
	<!-- 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
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			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 ].
	*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
	Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	</pre></noinclude>
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	]

Latest revision as of 15:39, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(31 December 2024)
(6 January 2024)
(7 January 2025)
(8 January 2025)

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

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

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

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

I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Cambial Yellowing (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"
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"
17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267995628 by Hipal (talk)"
17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hipal (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .

PS: Their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. Garuda 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.

“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”

wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.

“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”

Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself

“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”

The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?

Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.

It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

User:37.72.154.146 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked 24h)

User being reported: 37.72.154.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
2. 16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
3. 16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
4. 16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
5. 16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
6. 16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
7. 16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
8. 16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Awards System */"
9. 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Modern times */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Westville Boys' High School."
11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Westville Boys' High School."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia by User:NotQualified (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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)

Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

They're up to it again NotQualified (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

""" NotQualified (talk) 01:50, 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. 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.

"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"

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)

No violation. This report is a mess. Bbb23 (talk) 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 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.

I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. NotQualified (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

User:80.200.232.89 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked one week)

User being reported: 80.200.232.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Genetic influence"
23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268251743 by MrOllie (talk)"
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:

23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Vandalizing */"

Comments:

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 race science in other articles and edit warring there too. Blatant troll WP:NOTHERE. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at Genome-wide association study, not one as you claim. MrOllie (talk) 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. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 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. 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)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

User:104.173.25.23 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: 104.173.25.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268310547 by C.Fred (talk) Already took it to talk"
04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268310269 by PEPSI697 (talk)"
04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268309093 by Tenebre.Rosso.Sangue995320 (talk)"
04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268308251 by Galaxybeing (talk) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268080514 by Flat Out (talk) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page Flat Out (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268346390 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268345471 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268344773 by CNMall41 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also note the SPI case CNMall41 (talk) 08:55, 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)

User:Ger2024 reported by User:Sunnyediting99 (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:00 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
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."
04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
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."
05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

04:36 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: New Section"
05:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 14:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: