Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
<noinclude><center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.<br/>Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.'''</center>
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
===] reported by ] (Result: 36 hours to Jun kakeko, 24 hours to IP )===
*] violation on
{{Article|Dir en grey}}. {{3RRV|122.49.175.210}}: Time reported: 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*1st revert:
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*3rd revert:
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*4th revert:
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*5th revert:
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
*8th revert:
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*Diff of 3RR warning:
Repeated reinsertion of information that several other editors either deemed improperly sourced or irrelevant to the article. Other (properly cited) content was removed in the process. - ] 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*I took a very quick look at it and my thoughts are this: Issue at hand is the fact that while the English source does provide the band's name directly, the Sankei link (in Japanese) doesn't mention the group at all. Anyone else want to sort this out? - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 19:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
**That's right, the English source mentions the band, but only in connection with the fraudulent orders ("''for producing promotional videos for such artists as "Dir en grey,"''"). Yet the IP based editor has repeatedly reinserted the information, that the fundings illegally obtained through these orders were particularly used to cover overhead costs of aforementioned band, which is inaccurate and thus unacceptable per ]. - ] 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
This user has also been edit warring elsewhere (before the warning) inserting the same information on other pages:
I would be less concerned if this was just an edit war, but it seems to be something more.
] 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*] violation on
{{Article|Free-Will}}. {{3RRV|122.49.175.210}}: Time reported: 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
*Previous version reverted to:
:{{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) ==
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
*Diff of 3RR warning: ''see above''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
As data provided by WHOIS, as well as certain behavior patterns seem to match, could the reviewing administrator take a look at these previous 3RR violations and determine whether there is a genuine scope for relation? This would imply at least six 3RR violations from the same person. - ] 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:The editor has since identified himself as user {{user|Jun kaneko}}. - ] 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
# (31 December 2024)
::Based on the history of editor, 36 hours to main account, and 24 hours to IP. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
===] reported by ] (Result: Protected.)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Chronic Fatigue Syndrome}}. {{3RRV|Sciencewatcher}}: Time reported: 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's 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.-->
<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 />
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
: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)
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
::{{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)
*Diff of 3RR warning:
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
(Not a new user, but warning was placed. Can see the response on my ] page.)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
Sciencewatcher has continued to revert the removal of a controversial sentence which has had a citation request tag on it since May. Editors have attempted to engage this user on the article's talk page, but have not had success. ] 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
:Actually it was Taroaldo who reverted the information 3 times. I reverted it twice because he gave an invalid reason. The third time I added a citation, thinking this would satisfy him. When it didn't, I tried to discuss it with him on his talk page and the article's talk page, but he is being unreasonable and is now accusing me of breaking the 3RR rule, which I didn't do (in fact he broke the 3RR rule before he even put the 3RR warning on my talk page).
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
:I would suggest you look at the CFS page as there are 2 edit wars going on. Taroaldo and another user are bullying me in order to try to keep their POV and no others on the page. --] 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:*Protected, note on talk. ] <sup> ] </sup> 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: already blocked)===
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
*] violation on
# {{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"
{{Article|Monica Bellucci}}. {{3RRV|Barateiro}}: Time reported: 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
*Edit-warring over infobox photo on ].
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
*Diff of 3RR warning:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Reported by ] ] 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
===] and ] reported by ] (Result: 24hoursto Moosh88 )===
== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
*] violation on
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
{{Article|Hurrians}} {{Article|Armenia (name)}} {{Article|Armenian language}} {{Article|Proto-Armenian language}} {{Article|Graeco-Aryan language}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!--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.-->
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
*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:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
The information I have added on the above article has been removed for no reason by the two stated editors. One of the editors, ] has been blocked before for inciting a 3RR edit war, which is what I believe he is trying to do now. And ] is not holding himself to the higher standards of an administrator, nor is he neautral, nor does he cite the reasons why he reverted ] 21:58, 23 September 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)
: I personally don't see any violation of 3RR on part of either ] or ], however the actions of ] are clearly covered by this ruling of ]: Within just the last couple of days Moosh88 was engaged in massive canvassing, edit warring across multiple pages and incivility. I believe this requires the attention of admins. ] 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:bogus report. Moosh88 has been ] about canvassing before. --] <small>]</small> 07:49, 24 September 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)
*Before you file, remember that both sides will be looked at. While you could say that Dbachmann and Ghirl both might be gaming the system, you made
to , so you're getting blocked for 24 hours. No actions to Ghirlandajo and Dbachmann at this time. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 08:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
**we are not "gaming the system". We are merely rolling back offtopic, unreliably sourced or unsourced additions. That the burden of defending these on talk is on Moosh88 is perfectly straightforward Misplaced Pages-as-usual. This is at best a content dispute, blending into fringe-warrior territory. --] <small>]</small> 10:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: PageProtected)===
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|smoking}}. {{3RRV|Peter Isotalo}}: Time reported:
] 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
I hope I did this right. This user is preventing any editing or discussion of the article. I placed a discussion and he deleted it. I requested citations, he removed them. He removed the neutral point of view tag I placed as well. While the 3 revisions didn't happen in 24 hours, he's been consistantly doing it, not only to me, but to anyone who tries to improve the article (which he originally wrote) I also see he's been reported for this before, in this very same article, and been banned for it.
*Page Protected by Animum. You guys need to sort this out on talk page. Note that COI issues may be present. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 01:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
**I'd just like to point out that Naacats is a pro-smoking activist who promotes his own website NAACATS (North American Association of Cigarette and Tobacco Smokers) and the article ] in smoking articles across the board and has consistently removed links and slanted information that is deemed be too unfavorable to (tobacco) smoking. There's even been an appeal on the NAACATS website to assist in removing allegedly biased information about the health hazards of smoking. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
===] reported by ] (Result: No violation )===
*] violation on
{{Article|RMS Lusitania}}. {{3RRV|141.161.98.98}}: Time reported: 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
*Diff of 3RR warning:
## {{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:'''
The line was removed by ] with a note on the talk page . This IP has repeatedly re-added the line despite warnings and suggestions to discuss changes on the talk page. ''' – ]''' | <sup>]</sup> 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*3 reverts only. No violation. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h )===
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*] violation on
{{Article|John Smoltz}}. {{3RRV|Street20}}: Time reported: 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
*Previous version reverted to:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
*1strevert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
] keeps undoing a correct edit on ], replacing the player's years with the organization with the years he was healthy, which is not how it is traditionally done. So not only has user violated 3RR, his edit is incorrect. User has been engaged in discussion on talk page but has yet to respond. He maintains his edit is common but has not backed this up - because it is a false claim.►''']''' 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:You're both blocked 24 hours, since I rather suspect I know who that IP who ''conveniently'' intervened was. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
#
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::Request a checkuser, that's not me. I'm not the only one that's reverted him, his edit is wrong and most people know it.►''']''' 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Per Dmcdevit, checkuser was ran and neither IP that reverted during the day was matched to Chrisjnelson. For that, I've unblocked him. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
::::Thank you. I did not want to be blocked for 3RR when I did not revert four times.►''']''' 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 h block)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Settlers of Catan}}. {{3RRV|Quelt42}}: Time reported: 09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
*Previous version reverted to:
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)
Reverts within 24-hour period:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
Warnings:
*Diff of 1st 3RR warning (after 2nd revert):
*Diff of 2nd 3RR warning (after 3rd revert):
:]
] added an external link to a Java implementation of ], which was removed in line with ]. He has reverted that and all subsequent attempts to remove the link. Listed reversions are not the only ones, but are the four that have come within a 24-hour period despite warnings. ] 09:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:"""
:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (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)
*User was clearly and repeatedly warned, and is directly in violation of ] as well as 3RR. I'll block for 24 hours; it'll be longer next time. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:13, 24 September 2007 (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 ] 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: NovioonEstgeorge, GreenJoe warned)===
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Ontario Health Insurance Plan}}. {{3RRV|Estgeorge}}: Time reported: 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
*Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
<!--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:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
*Diff of 3RR warning:
# {{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:'''
He continues to inject his own POV, unreferenced opinion into the article. ] 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
*No violation by Estgeorge. GreenJoe on the other hand has 4 reverts. Since he's not warned, I will warn instead of block. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 14:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
**The anon user was likely him. Thank for for giving me the benefit of the doubt. ] 17:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
**I went and looked at the history, and the anon user went and did it again after this report. He's trying to skirt the 3RR rule. ] 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: 24h to DIREKTOR, 72h to Giovanni)===
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
*] violation on
{{Article|Mauro Orbini}}. {{3RRV|DIREKTOR}}: Time reported: 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
A short explanation of the incident.<br />
I've tried different versions and I've tried an agreement (see history). All my edits in all the articles are regulary reverted by user Direktor, acting toghehter other users.. He refuse all the compromises, just imposing his POV as it is. ] 15:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:This editor is ''very'' "POV" and has also violated the 3RR, as is evident in the History page of the article. He has '''''NOT''''' tried discussing and ''persists'' in making completely incorrect (and offensive) edits. He has been confronted by several editors (], ] and myself) but refuses to stop pushing his POV. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">] <sup>(])</sup></font> 15:40, 24 September 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)
*DIREKTOR blocked 24h for edit-warring. Giovanni blocked for 72h due to past history. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
: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)
*] violation on
: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)
{{Article|Athens}}. {{3RRV|85.74.44.243}}: Time reported: 22:26, 24 September 2007 (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) ==
*Previous version reverted to:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
<!--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.-->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*Diff of 3RR warning:
# {{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:'''
85.74.44.243 continues to revert changed made through a discussion on the talk page about limiting the number of images on the Athens article. See also the above discussion: 85.74.151.103 The user not only continues to spam the article with images, the user now revert text, which has been spell checked and edited. The user continues to ignore that, and has done so before: back on Aug 31, 2007 He has also started on ] See: <sup>] (] '''·''' ])</sup> 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
*{{admin|Navou}} has blocked the user for a period of 24 hours for his/her disruption at ]. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: )===
*] violation on
{{Article|User:Operation Spooner}}. {{3RRV|Arcayne}}: Time reported: 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*Previous version reverted to:
Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
Arcayne is involved in a long term content dispute with ] on ] and has been ] him on his user and talk pages with multiple reverts in Operation Spooner's ]. Arcayne insists he is removing personal attacks, but according to ] this does not appear to be the case. The content in question appears to be a personal essay by Operation Spooner concerning ownership issues/strategies that neither mentions user names or points fingers. I made an attempt to rewrite the User content to satisfy Arcayne's concerns, who is convinced that the essay is about him, but I was reverted. My compromise attempt consisted of removing ambiguous wording and helping the User focus on addressing his own personal experience with ], which is what his user page appeared to suggest (Please see ). Having direct experience with writing portions of ] some time ago, and focusing on specific aspects that ] describes, this task greatly appealed to me. As his block log shows, Arcayne is very familiar with 3RR. —] | ] 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
:Actually, let's put this into its proper perspective. Operation Spooner has been adding personal attacks on his user page for over a month, and has been advised of the NPA violations they constitute. Instead of removing them as requested by no less than three admins, he has actually expanded upon these personal attacks. I was removing them, as these updates occurred every time his edits in the ] article occurred.
:Now, Viriditas, who I have had ''extensive'' personal conflicts with over the past year, and who I have ried very much to avoid as one of those people who make Misplaced Pages suck to edit. Yesterday, he began revising my edits in ''WP:Lead'', and then began attacking my edits in both ] and ], using uncivil language and personal attacks. He then accused me of wikistalking and harrassment and being a bad editor, and apparently just raining on his parade or whatever.
:Magically, he shows up in the OperationSpooner user page and begins reverting my edits, calling himself a "diosnterested" and "neutral" third party. Clearly, he is not - and I was pursuing filing an RfC in regards to his long-term abusive and threatening behavior, but I am currently at work, and filing such is a fairly slow matter.
: I contend that removing personal attacks is not subject to 3RR, and that I clearly explained my removal of the sections in question in the edit summaries. I am allowed to protect myself from personal attacks. - ] ] 01:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) As well, i would note that I have revert my changes to Spooner's page (it took some time, as the database kept locking while the servers caught up), and wait for an admin to weigh in. This is to avoid appearing to edit war over what I still feel are personal attacks, and Viriditas' non-neutral wikistalking. I am too close to this to act neutrally myself, and am removing myself from the issue. Hopefully, an nautral admin will be better able to address the situation. As for Viriditas, I will address the wikistalking nad harrassm,ent through another noticeboard. - ] ] 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
::Please show evidence of Spooner's personal attacks that you removed, with quotes. Also, please show how of Spooner's admittedly bizarre essay consisted of "personal attacks". These are Spooner's personal beliefs about his experience on Misplaced Pages, and you had no right to remove them. —] | ] 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
::Forgive me, but I have nothing to say to you outside of an RfC, Viriditas. You are cynically using this matter to wikistalk. I could name 6 other editors and admins who have counseled you about your behavior, and every time you ignore them. You have more in common with Spooner than you know. - ] ] 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Thank you for providing an ''example'' of your ]. Now, please show where Spooner has made them, particularly in my revision of his essay which focuses on ownership issues, not individual editors. —] | ] 01:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Sigh, anyone taking a look at his user contributions would clearly be able to see that he would make an edit to the Ronald Reagan article, (usually get reverted) and then go about making a revision to his warnings for new users subject. As a great many were directed at me or ], I took them as personal attacks. At least three admins pointed out to him that these were personal attacks. Spooner promptly ignored them. Anyone looking at Viriditas' edit history will show that he showed up for the first time where I was editing to revet my edits after another clash on ]. - ] ] 02:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm still not seeing the evidence of the personal attacks you claim to have reverted on Operation Spooner's user page. Can you please present them here? All I see is someone involved in a content dispute harassing a user in their user space and hiding under the "NPA" policy to bully and intimidate another user. Please present the personal attacks you claim Spooner made on his user page that forced you to violate the 3RR. —] | ] 02:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
::I have just learned that ] as a valid method for defending against personal attacks was rejected a little over a week ago after lengthy discussion. Unfortunately, I am at work at this time and cannot put together the diffs that would clearly show the relationship between Spooner's edits being turned down in the Reagan article and his updating of his section on warnings for new editors. As well, had I the time, i would be able to deomonstrate the correlation between Viriditas' wiki-stalking and subsequent insertion into the Spooner issue and clearly demonstrate that Viriditas was not acting as a "neutral party" but was in fact engaged in a pattern of harrassment. I won't spend too much time on the latter here, as this isn't the place for it (RfO or RfC is a better venue, I think), instead providing the background to indicate that Viriditas is not acting neutrally here, and in fact is as guity of breaking 3RR as he accuses me of being:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*
*
*
*
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
- ] ] 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
:::I am going to comment about the ] article, which has prompted all of this. The lead was in decent shape about two weeks before becoming a FA on August 25, until Spooner added a highly detailed outline of Reagan's economic policies. Eventually, he and I whittled it down to an extra sentence, something we were . After passing the FAC, Arcayne and a few others joined the "team" of editors, and one of Arcayne's first edits was , which included generalizing even what Spooner and I worked out and adding some more about his presidency. Eventually, Spooner readded in that lot about his economic philosphy, so the editors (including ], ], ], ], ], Arcayne, and myself) came to a concensus saying that the material Spooner wanted is true, but was too detailed for the lead section per ], which says the lead should provide a general overview of the subject and not focus too much on one topic. Well, to say it frankly, Spooner rejected the entire concept of concensus, saying his version should stay in because he and I agreed on it before (see ]). An admin tried to explain to him that concensus was always changing, but I don't know what came of that. Arcayne even took the liberty of adding it into the Governor section to try and solve this problem! Anyway, we eventually compromised with Spooner, but he apparently seems to be going against that compromise and changing it again. Arcayne and many other editors have asked him to please explain why his material should go in the lead on the talk page, but the conversation usually warps into how someone is personally attacking someone else, and the "your wrong, and I'm right!" crap. Anyway, I don't know of this helps, but here's the story. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best, ] 05:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours for sockpuppetry)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Slither (2006 film)}}. {{3RRV|Tromaintern}}: Time reported: 03:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*Previous version reverted to: - This version was a version agreed upon in a discussion that took place on the talk page. Tromaintern did not like the consensus and has decided to revert to their preferred version, even after being warned at for reaching their 3 reverts for the 24 hour period.
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
**It may need to be noted that Tromaintern as a possible sock puppet of ], who was indefinitely blocked.
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Blocked for 24 hours by Cuchullain for sockpuppetry. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 04:11, 25 September 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)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*] violation on
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Article|David Vitter}}. {{3RRV|MattJanovic}}: Time reported: 04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
*Diff of 3RR warning:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
New user continues to post lengthy, speculative text derived from from a site called into the lead. At least three editors have reverted the addition of this text, and two have expressed opposition to the addtion of this text on the ].
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
--] 04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*Clear cut. Blocked for 24h. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 04:32, 25 September 2007 (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."
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:Both users wanred )===
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
*] violation on
# "Lady Saso: Reply"
{{Article|Rick Mercer}}. {{3RRV|Bearcat}}: Time reported: 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*1st revert: -- rv to version of , wrt the section concerned (but adding a reference)
*2ndrevert:--rvtoversionof
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
*3rd revert: -- rv to version of , wrt use of '''"gay"''' rather than '''"homosexual"'''
*4th revert: -- rv to version of
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.
No warning given, but Bearcat is an admin and so should know better
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).
A few days ago, in accordance with WP:BLP, I deleted unreferenced claims that Mercer is homosexual. Bearcat restored them once w/o a reference (outside the 3rr window), then again with a reference (1st revert, above), then reverted trimming of the material, and details of its wording. -- ] 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
:Lonwolf BC, you've also borken the 3RR rule, I've given you both a warning - please don't edit war. ] 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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 ].
::Not that I can see. I'd be grateful if you pointed out what you see as a fourth revert on my part. (Here or my talkpage; it's all the same to me.) -- ] 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours )===
*] violation on
{{Article|Bourbon whiskey}}. {{3RRV|82.29.19.133}}: Time reported: 10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
<!--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.-->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
*1st revert:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*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:
Anonymous user determined to place phonemic pronunciation guides, against ], on a number of pages including , , , , and other pages. <font color="red">]</font> 10:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:Blocked by {{admin|allen3}} for 24 hours. ] 13:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:48 hours )===
#
*] violation on
#
{{Article|Jajah}}. {{3RRV|RolandR}}: Time reported: 14:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
#
*Previous 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:
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
RolnadR has been blocked for 3Rr 3 times before.
:Blocked for 48 hours due to previous blocks for edit warring. ] 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Misogyny}}. {{3RRV|71.72.130.221}}: Time reported: 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
:{{u|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
<!--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.-->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
*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:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
The user has repetitively been inserting commentary into quoted text. I have tried to explain why this is problematic, and warned for 3RR. I am an admin, but because I was involved in the undoing, I am not going to use the tools myself to block, and would like an uninvolved admin to review the case. The last edit seems to be trying to accommodate my concerns, however all the user did was remove the quotes so it was no longer inserting the commentary into quoted text (however, removing the quotes is an issue in itself due to copyvio/plagiarism concerns, which is another issue entirely). Needless to say, the last diff still is inserting the same basic text.] </sup>]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:IP blocked for 24 hours, Andrew C warned. ] 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result:2 wks)===
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1268451301|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
{{Article|Denial of Soviet occupation}}. {{3RRV|Digwuren}}: Time reported: 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268450870|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268449472|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268448980|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
'''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
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*1st revert:
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
:User blocked for 3RR before, so he was aware of it.
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
Looks like User:Digwuren thinks he ] the article. He rejected any tag, and added references that don't cover the text they supposedly reference. I tried to put a version supported by sources (one of them being supported by Digwuren's proposed DYK) and to ask for further references to support Digwuren's claim, but I was reverted every time.] 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
*Yes, clearly edit warring after repeated blocks. Blocked for two weeks. As Digwuren is involved in an Arbcom case, there may need to be some arrangement for him to be unblocked for participation in this. ] ] 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
** Hmm, weird. There are two reverts on two different edits. First is clear antivandalism as somebody is removing sources inappropriately. And adding CN's. Even though they are not actually not even needed there. I don't know about the second topic. I don't think it was good idea to block. But what do I know, I guess 2RR goes against vandalism aswell. I would personally have requested page protection myself, as some editors just have grudge about the editor and wanted to remove the GA status from the article by using random tagging and starting editwar. It's sad to see that Digwuren fell a victim of the provocations. ] <small>]</small> 20:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
***I don't see any vandal reverts here. Also, even with fewer than four reverts, I'd have probably blocked since the user should know by now not to edit war after the many blocks he's received. ] ] 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
****It's true that the first one is a bit questionable: while he removes the OR tag added by Irpen, he does also add a citation, so perhaps it's not best to count it as a revert. But this does not change the fact that he is edit warring. ] ] 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
***** So was {{Userlinks|Anonimu}}. His latest contributions to other related articles follow the same pattern. Also check his block log. That is the problem with those editors. They like plain template tagging to discredit articles (in this time to successfully remove the GA status) instead of trying to find consensus or actually add sources themself. Other article was editprotected until consensus is found. I think this kind of approach would have been better in this case aswell instead of doubtable one sided block. But as said before I am not the one to decide. ] <small>]</small> 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
Digwuren's reverts (times in GMT)
#removal of recently added OR tag at
#same again at
#same again
#Same again
#Same again with abusive vandalism summary
#Same again again with abusive vandalism summary
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
OR tags were explained at talk and added by three different editors but Digwuren just ran a sterile revert war. It is 6RR not even a 3RR. --] 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
: Oh damn, I forgot that there are tagteams. Ah, my bad. Sorry to bother. ] <small>]</small> 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
::The two first diffs are by ], not me. What next -- sockpupped accusations and an RFCU based on sharing the two first letters of nick? ]<sub>]</sub> 07:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours to both)===
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
*] violation on
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
]. {{3RRV|74.77.222.188}}: Time reported: 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268687321|01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=1268684554|diff=1268686155|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268685840|01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
## {{diff2|1268686155|01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
*Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1268688594|01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "]Created page with '== January 2025 == ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> You didn't read the ] carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
*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:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
A short explanation of the incident. ] 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The user was not following the ] correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I guess it depends on your viewpoint -- I'm either: 1) engaged in an edit war with a few anonymous IP addresses, possibly a sockpuppet or two, most especially a hothead at 74.77.222.18 who doesn't seem to think ], ] ] and ] (for starters) have any bearing on Talk page "discussions"; 2) dealing with right wing vandals who don't want any updates made to certain articles near and dear to them; or 3) just having a lively Wiki discussion. Perhaps if I indicate what 74.77.222.18 keeps reverting, that might help: .
:YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! ] (]) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:*I looked into it, and both of you violated 3RR. For the record, the page was moved as an archival attempt by Gamaliel. Callmebc reverted times. 24 hours each. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. ] (]) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} ] (]) 09:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: Alreadyblocked for vandalism)===
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on
{{Article|Libby, Montana}}. {{3RRV|17.221.13.236}}: Time reported: 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
*Already blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
#
#
#
#
===] reported by ] (Result: User Warned)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Hugh Hefner}}. {{3RRV|JerryGraf}}: Time reported: 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
JerryGraf did 4 reverts in a 24 hour period , after adding what is ment to be a negative statement about the biography of a living person, after i removed it he keeps reverting it back. Not to mention the comment should actually be on a different page as well. I did 3 in the 24 hour period. But he just did his 4th. And apparently has no plans on stopping] 21:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:*Fixed malformed Request. will look into it. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
::*He barely skirted 24 hour range. As he has no warnings about 3RR yet, I've warned him. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], ]
===] reported by ] (Result: Indef)===
*] violation on
{{Article|USS Liberty incident}}. {{3RRV|Louie33}}: Time reported: 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previousversionreverted to:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 14:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*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:
Looks like ] thinks he is the world expert regarding that matter so he feels free to add POV, and to remove sourced statements. - ] 22:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
<!-- 1st report here, hope I didn't screw up-->
*<s>You didn't exactly follow the template, but it could've been worse. 24 hours to Louie33, clear cut violation. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)</s>
*Changed to indef due to editor's declaration of wanting to own the article - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
=== ] reported by ] Result 24 hours ===
5 reverts in a 24 hour period on September 25th against longstanding consensus (user tried to remove all references to ] from the ] article). Check it out:
<font color="404040">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
*Another malformed report, but this one is clear cut too. 24 hours. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] 01:04, 26 September 2007 (Result: Article Semi-protected)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Frida Kahlo}}. {{3RRV|70.18.5.219 (Talk)}}: Time reported: 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:20:23
*2nd revert:20:31
*3rd revert:21:20
*4th revert:22:40
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
*Diff of 3RR warning:
I repeatedly asked this editor to discuss the issue in dispute on the talk page of the article at ] as did an administrator ] who issued a ] warning. After the warning he reverted again, leaving insulting messages in his edit summaries and finally a very insulting message on the talk page. ] 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*I semi-protected article so a discussion can be generated. For the record, I don't think his edit comments or talk page comments are ''that'' bad. Couple with the fact that IP's been stale, I reasoned it's not worth blocking 24 hours. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: Page protected)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Chris Conley}}. {{3RRV|Eusebeus}}: Time reported: 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*1st revert:
*2nd revert: - note edit summary includes threat of "edit war"
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
Despite clear consensus to the contrary, ] seems to be convinced that the ] does not meet standards of notability, despite the inclusion of multiple, reliable and verifiable sources. Suggestions to take this article to AfD have been ignored. This is the 14th time that ] has blanked the article into a redirect, undoing the work of at least 11 different Misplaced Pages editors who clearly believe that individual notability has been established. ] 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*Bull. Consult the talk page of the article in question. A slew of SP accounts have reverted, raising serious COI concerns. ] 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
**Page protected. I don't see SP involved in revert war, so take it to talk page. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
***Barring any further violations on this article by this user, I have no interest in seeing any of the required sanctions being applied to ]. However, the article needs to be restored to its status quo ante prior to Eusebeus' 4th revert here so that the article can be further improved and expanded, and so that any of the specific content issues he might raise on the talk page can be addressed. ] 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
****You mean that ] got protected, of course. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*****Thanks for correcting my terminology. ] 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:Indefinitely blocked)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Coral Smith}}. {{3RRV|Loansince}}: Time reported: 09:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
I edited the ] to remove the unsourced/POV stuff, improve the grammar, etc. Loansince reverted it, remarking in his Edit Summaries, "reverted unsourced info back to sourced information". (I added no unsourced info to the article.) When I tried to open a dialogue on his Talk Page, his only response was to blank his Talk Page, revert again, and remark in his Edit Summary, "find sources / this has been sourced". When I again tried to explain to him how things were done on WP, he reverted again with the Summary: "Nightscreem stop reverting. You find sources". When I tried again to speak with him, and repeatedly warned that he could be blocked for this behavior, he placed the following message on my Talk Page: ''"I'm writing this message here because it seems you have had a serious talking to by more users than just my self (up above) about adding unsourced contributions to wikipedia. The Coral Smith info you are adding into the article is unsourced and I have told you that repeatedly. Until you get sources for that info, stop adding it in and being so irritating."'' For the record, I have have been given no admonishments about unsourced info, nor has he told me this "repeatedly", nor have I been "irritating", or anything other than polite to him. Reading his Talk Page (or its history) will not only verify this, but will show other instances of his deliberately ignoring WP rules and consensus. ] 09:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*A clear break but as ] is a new user and was (so far as I can find) not specifically warned about the three revert rule, I have given him a warning and guidance rather than blocking. Will continue to monitor the situation. ] 15:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
** ] has now banned ] indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned user. ] 21:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours )===
*] violation on
{{Article|Battlezone}}. {{3RRV|65.57.245.11}}: Time reported: 16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
Editor was warned on 3RR violation. Editor keeps trying to remove and/or alter reference material of publicly known Californian collector Scott Evans who runs AtariGames.Com and owns the Bradley Fighting Vehicle simulator in question, and has public page about it. Editor's IP is an open proxy in Colorado with long history of problems. Would like an sprotect on the page as well possibly. --] 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please also see the ] recently started on Battlezone's talk page. --] 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*24 hours. Wgungfu - please be more careful about throwing the term vandalism around in edit summaries. This is a content dispute not vandalism. Indeed, perhaps the ip thinks there may be a BLP issue? The content you are defending is speculative as written and is perhaps inappropriate but that can be hashed out on the article talk page. I have not sprotected as there are constructive ip edits to this article. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
::No problem about the vandalism comment, I'll watch it. As far as speculative and BLP, I don't see how - Scott owns the machine in question and put up the page in the reference detailing his ownership and the machine. --] 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
::Fair enough, I only looked at the deleted text and didn't follow the link. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|David Hicks}}. {{3RRV|Brendan.lloyd}}: Time reported: 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
All edits remove "pled guilty" from the first paragraph. User is edit-warring against an edit he agreed to just a few days ago, after just coming back from a block for edit-warring. See ] talk-page thread about the block. - ] 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*72 hours ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:reporter blocked as likely sock. Reportee warned. )===
*] violation on
{{Article|Richard Stallman}}. {{3RRV|Thumperward}}: Time reported: 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
There was also a fifth revert, of the exact section, at 17:15, 25 September 2007 : I warned Themperward that he is gaming 3RR by making his 4th revert at 24hours + 4 minutes, and he responsed with a dismissive comment. ] 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*considering report ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*OK, I think that violentcrime is a sockpuppet and have blocked them indefinitely. I have (will) warn Thumperward about the 3RR. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:48 hour block )===
*] violation on
{{Article|Yoon Bong-Gil}}. {{3RRV|Wikimachine}}: Time reported: 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
Also violated (intentional gaming, three minutes outside 24h) on ].
* Previous version:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert: - blind revert, removing changes of unrelated editors
User since 2005, clearly aware of 3RR, gaming the 3RR system while warning others . Continuous removal of category he disputes on these two articles. Other editor tried to reinsert, but eventually gave up when Wikimachine made it clear he was declaring an all out revert war and not interested in discussion. Wikimachine was blocked recently for 48 hours for blatant refusal to cooperate or discuss edits. He has a pattern of planning revert wars, trying to game the system recently saying, "When our 24 hrs limit is up, we can revert...back."
===] reported by ] (Result:48 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Pro-pedophile Activism}}. {{3RRV|SqueakBox}}: Time reported: 02:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: Multiple.
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
Edit war. Block log reveals a history of similar behaviour. ] 02:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
* Two separate bursts of reverts, but one part is common to both. User has previously been blocked for revert warring on similar articles. He was active on the talk page but some of the changes were relatively minor which makes it worse in my view. I have blocked Squeakbox for 48 hours. ] 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:The anon user has him/her self reverted 3 times and made what i can only describe as trolling comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3APro-pedophile_activism&diff=160720203&oldid=160661999. Seems like he tried to set Squeak up so he could then push his views in peace and the factt hat somebody reports while edit warring themselves makes me question the good faith of this anonymous user.
]. {{3RRV|Sunray}}: Time reported: 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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: &
He keeps harassing me by reverting my talk page. I'm frustrated now by his behaviour. ] 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Please clarify on how his behavior is different from yours: . Additionally, it appears that you may have baited him with some of your edit summaries, such as and . —''']''' (]) 03:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
**I'm not saying that it is, but I did stop, he kept going, even after I asked him to stop. I didn't bait him, the first summary was the same one he used as well, if you look at his own talk page history. ] 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
***(edit conflict) He has gone ahead and stopped, and . I don't see where there's anything ongoing to be ''prevented'' by a block. —''']''' (]) 03:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
****I don't see that as an agreement to stop. He simply gave in, but he'd do it again. ] 03:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
**The first example you gave is directly from . ] 03:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*If I may make an observation, I believe that much of this conflict would have been avoided had it not been for the abuse and misuse of various tags. Case in point, ] applied he cited above, despite the fact that ] had only reverted the removal of the Fraternities and Sororities section once - and had in fact made no edits at all in the preceeding 41 hours. One minute after placing the warning, GreenJoe the section. Clearly, the warning did not apply. Sunray removed the warning from his talk page and restored the Fraternities and Sororities section. At this point, GreenJoe not only returned the edit war warning, but added a 3RR warning and a welcome/bad practices warning. Why this was done is a bit of a mystery. After all, as he had only just made his first revert in over 41 hours, Sunray was in no danger of violating 3RR. (I won't bother drawing a conclusion as to why one would place a welcome/bad practices warning on the talk page of someone who has been contributong to Misplaced Pages since 2003.) While I could go on (and will, if anyone believes it necessary), I think I have made my point. Now, in the interest of openness, I should add that within minutes of to the section, I too received an from GreenJoe. In this respect, my experience is from that of ]. ] 07:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Users editing content in their own user space is a specific exception from the ]. Removing warnings is controversial and not to be undertaken lightly, and edit warring about them is disruptive and somewhat pointless. However, as ] seems to have accepted that he will walk away from the dispute and not revert, I have given him a warning. ] 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Killian documents authenticity issues}}. {{3RRV|SEWilco}}: Time reported: 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
Note that there was another revert by a short lived IP address:
A short explanation of the incident. ] 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this so convoluted that I don't know if I can make it that short...but:
] had added a new sub-section called "Mother's Day" involving an anecdote by an old friend of Bush, William Campenni, that appeared in some unknown form (there is no easy way to access the article -- the link SEWilco keeps using is broken) in the Washington Times, a conservative (well, actually right wing) newspaper a couple of years ago. Basically Campenni claims that one of the Killian memos in which Killian is ordering Bush to report to a physical has to be forged because, to quote Campenni, ''For the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed.''. The problem is that the memo in question doesn't say that. It's dated May 4th and the exact quote is: ''"You are ordered to report to commander, 111 F.L.S, Ellington AFB, not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972 to conduct annual physical examination."'' Also Campenni's claim that the base would be shut down that entire weekend, because of Mother's Day, appears to be unsupported by any other source.
So while Campenni claims that Bush was ordered to report '''on''' the weekend of the 13-14, the memo clearly says '''by''' the 14th, which was Bush's last day on base (according DoD records). A not so slight difference. '''But then SEWilco posts the assertion by referencing the Washington Times piece but actually using the wording from the memo -- which is fabrication, I do believe.''' SEWilco also adds that even if the memo was dated May 4th (a Thursday that year), it would not reach Bush by mail before the weekend -- which is not only wild speculation but is utterly nonsensical: bases have their own mail room, so the memo would just be put into Bush's mail box. Lastly SEWilco also adds that the address on the memo is wrong without providing a reference for that, and some Google searching indicates that the address is correct -- it's Bush's parents, and it shows up also in official records. See the talk discussion here .
I keep pointing these things out and removing the add, but SEWilco simply says that it's "verifiable" and then puts it back. So...
*This may be a slow-burning revert war but one revert a day is really not close enough to 'gaming the system' on four reverts in a 24-hour period. This is no violation. The subject of the dispute isn't relevant here (don't continue the dispute on this page) but I advise you to check the source supplied and compare it with the paragraph as written so that you can come to a compromise. ] 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
: Well, I had been blocked over another 3RR revert issue with another Killian wiki troublemaker, so I'm leery of reverting things too many times in a short period. If you check the Talk page thread, it's pretty clear that things have become circular -- the only available sources even dicussing the Washington Times piece only quote sections of it, but those sections don't match up with what SEWilco is claiming. It looks like pretty cut and dry fabrication to me. I'll revert, but he'll just put it back with the same "verifiable" recant wth the same broken link, despite my asking him over and over to supply that "verifable" evidence. The is nothing to compromise about, since he's just maliciously inserting some stuff that has no backing whatsoever and is making no attempt to be reasonable via Wiki guidelines. So I guess I'll end up here again shortly.... -BC aka ] 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
: This is a content dispute where an editor does not have source material and is not accepting statements about what is in the source material nor how to get it. He has now stated that he is trying to force a 3RR. Apparently he also has read the 3RR instructions as well as he is reading the article Talk page. How well he will read the source material is not yet known. (] 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC))
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hours each, see below)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Template:ScientologySeries}} and
{{Article|Template:Template:Scientologyfooter}}. Time reported: 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*4th revert:
*3rd revert:
*2nd revert:
*1st revert:
This is the second time this users 3RRs on the same article, ignoring missing consent and missing coverage by ] and ] for his robotic changes. The first time he was blocked accordingly (
Per 3RR rule the continuous revert does not need to be only within 24 hrs. ] 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
] 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Oh the humanity. Both ] and ] have three reverts in a short space of time, after previous warnings for revert warring. I might have blocked for gaming the system anyway but as all scientology articles are on ] I have blocked them both for 24 hours under its provisions. ] 11:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:24 hour)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Conservapedia}}. {{3RRV|Joaquín Martínez}}: Time reported: 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
User is pushing POV statements in the article - after being warned, his response was "go and use 3rr, it is an indication of liberal style to try and lock others out of debate". ] 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked 24-hours for edit-warring. ] 02:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Kraków}}. {{3RRV|Matthead}}: Time reported: 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
Matthead, a veteran of 2 3rr blocks, has now engaged in edit warring over a GA-candidate ], pushing - against consensus - his version of the name as well as section headings (among other things). I hope that such a 6rr violation will merit some form of an escalation block - we even cannot work on the articles to meet GA reviewer concerns to due his revert edit conflicts. <sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:I knew this would be coming. Please read ]. -- ] ] ] 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Matthead has been blocked for 48 hours, as this is not his first offense. He saw this report, knew the jig was up, and 6RR is not acceptable no matter how right one believes they are. --] - '']'' - ] 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Template:Countries and territories of Middle America}}. {{3RRV|Jcmenal}}: Time reported: 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to: (original )
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
Jcmenal added an additional level of regions (subregions) to what should be a simple regional template -- without discussing proposed changes first/at all and labelling changes as 'cleanup'. In the span of minutes, Jcmenal reverted my restorations of the simpler, ] template. Each of his reverts supports a point-of-view regarding the classification of territories in this region or, more appropriate, the inclusion of Mexico in 'North America' alone (i.e., to the exclusion of other schemes). These issues have recurred elsewhere as well. , and user hypocritically did the same. ] 16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': Corticopia is lying in the report. Jcmenal didn't reverted 4 times as he alleges, he reverted 3 times and he ''did warned'' Corticopia about him being blocked several times in the past. Please check the history of the article before concluding anything, because this report is trying to fool the admins. <font color="#CE1126">]</font>''<font color="#006847">]</font>'' <sup><font size="1" color="green">]</font></sup> 23:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
::''''Comment'''' The report and diffs are self-evident, and I stand by it. Jcmenal simplistically 'warned' me after I did the same -- in an event, he not once discussed his edits throughout on the talk page. I boldly created the template scant days ago. As well, the commentator has also been blocked repeatedly, is currently on 1RR parole, and is one of a cohort of Mexican editors (in addition to the violator and ], who has also been blocked and edits anonymously) who continually partake in boosterism and pernicious POV editing on Mexican-related articles or, similarly, by insinuating deprecating edits onto articles of 'competitor' countries (e.g., Brazil). ] 03:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': Corticopia keep your insults to yourself. My edits has no conflict with the current definition of Middle America (accepted even by Corticopia), in my last edit I changed Mexico's region and let it blank to avoid any problem. The Template's creator is not the Template's owner as Corticopia is trying to claim, Middle America comprises 3 regions (Mexico, Central America, West Indies) and Corticopia just would accept in a try to include (which is a definition conflict). Corticopia reverted my edits 3 times as well. ] 01:32, 28 September 2007 (PST)
*The user has not yet violated ] because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. I have also protected the page. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 22:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 12 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Dianne Feinstein}}. {{3RRV|More Truthiness}}: Time reported: 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*{{User5|More Truthiness}}, also editing as
*{{User5|66.7.37.66}}
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
The second revert could be argued to be the correction of a mistake, but there is still a violation here. User was warned about 3RR yesterday.
*Diff of 3RR warning:
] 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 12 hours. ] <small>(])</small> 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
: ''See also "Contestation and 3RR from Pmanderson" below this. — Komusou''
*] violation on
{{Article|P. G. Wodehouse}}. {{3RRV|Komusou}}: Time reported: 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
**Please note edit summary calling this content dispute vandalism
*4th revert:
**Using Undo button.
This is a content dispute. Komusou appears to object to calling Wodehouse English although Wodehouse himself did, and insists on reverting to the clumsy "British writer of English origin". If there were a dispute whether Wodehouse were in some sense, say, Welsh, this would be a different matter.
Several editors have objected to this on the talk page, especially ]; I have tried different texts. Both of us have edited the article at other points, but Komusou has exactly reverted four times at the point at issue. Please note that, although I have edited the passage four times myself, the first was not a revert, but an independent effort to clean up execrable English, and the third was intentionally a new idea, taken from the Britannica, in the hope it might assuage Komusou's eccentric concerns. Enough. ] <small>]</small> 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:A solution may have been found to the content dispute; but please keep an eye on this. ] <small>]</small> 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
; Contestation and 3RR from Pmanderson
I claim that Pmanderson did the 3RR he accuses me of. Here, a dual timeline will give a better picture than his truncated one-sided view. I have noted "E" his edits towards the controversial version (article saying only "was an English writer") and "C" my edits towards the compromise version (article saying "was a British writer from England").
Last versions of the competing older revisions:
* E - 18:24, 9 September 2007 - the controversial revision Pmanderson will revert to
* C - 22:35, 9 September 2007 - the compromise revision I will restore to
Events (UTC):
* E - 22:58, 26 September 2007 - Pmanderson 1st revert to older version
* C - 06:47, 27 September 2007 - my 1st restoration, citing talk page discussion
* E - 17:20, 27 September 2007 - Pmanderson 2nd revert
* C - 17:54, 27 September 2007 - my 2nd restoration, citing new talk page answer
* E - 18:17, 27 September 2007 - Pmanderson 3rd revert
* C - 18:38, 27 September 2007 - my 3rd restoration, informing that a WP:DR is pending
* E - 19:30, 27 September 2007 - Pmanderson 4th revert
* C - 19:58, 27 September 2007 - my 4th restoration (after considering both that he violated 3RR and that his removing a basic piece of sourced information from a compromise version was closer to vandalism than regular content dispute)
* x - 20:26, 27 September 2007 - Pmanderson on talk page, gloating about 3RR
My claim summary: Pmanderson is the original 3RR violator, his first edit that day was a revert to an older version (reverting from a compromise version to a controversial one), thus he initiated the 3RR count on his first edit. I am basing myself on ] stating that "in the context of the English Misplaced Pages three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." (Note: I was of course aware that Pmanderson had 3RR'ed but I dislike using 3RR as a tool for entrapping others or silencing opposition. Of course, Pmanderson avoided to notify me of his 3RR report. Since he is in the habit of trying to deflect blame by preventively accusing others of his faults, I am unsurprised by his deceptive report.)
Additional 3RR-related comments:
IMO, if the revert count isn't performed like this, but as Pmanderson would like it, then a warrior would always either get his way or force his opponent into 3RR, because the attacker would have his count always one point less than the article's defender. Counting so would actually *favor* edit wars rather than prevent them, because a premium would be given to any attacker for going against the status quo. (That may also be why Pmanderson gleefully attacked in this manner without actual discussion on the talk page, he hoped to mechanically come on top of a 3RR without having his first revert be noticed.)
I may also be blamable for my 4th restoration, so I want to explain:
His reverts aren't about a convoluted dispute, but a clear cut case of sourced content removal. His reverts are identical to someone who would repeatedly go and replace a lead "Joe is a Canadian writer from Quebec" with just "Joe is a Quebec writer" by deleting mention of the sovereign nation. Such as special case may not be "simple vandalism", but I think he is knowingly removing a basic and central information for a biography, the official nationality (British passport, there is no English passport just like there is no Quebec passport). It is thus both ethnic POV-pushing and a deliberate attempt at removing information and lowering the content of the lead section, thus closer to vandalism than to disputed encyclopedic edits.
This is not a case of my reverting between "B" for me and "E" for him (that would be regular content dispute). It is about my restoring "B and E" (complete and encyclopedic, superset of his version, compromise) against his just "E" (deletion of the official nationality, subset of my version, no compromise).
I would also point out his non-debate behavior: after he reverted to a controversial version, and I restored the compromise version while sending him to the talk page, he should have left the compromise version in place and focussed on the talk page debate. Instead, he never try to address or rebuke any point of the debate, simply dropping on the talk page a short note to the effect of "he is English because he is English" then going back to revert.
And since it's a vital criterion for "vandalism", I contend that his edits summaries show clear cut bad faith. For instance, his stating that the neutral and precise compromise "British writer from England" is "neither neutral nor precise" and replacing it with just "England" which is a subset neither neutral nor precise, shows him using the tactic of deliberately accusing the other party of precisely what he's doing at the same time. Hard for me to take this double-talk, and the rest, as anything else than clear bad faith.
I thought those points could be taken into consideration, maybe in a manner of considering that each of my reverts doesn't necessarily count for "1 full revert" but maybe "0.5 revert" (figuratively), for such a case that's not about delicate disputed points but restoring the very basic information of nationality that an encyclopedia should provide.
Conclusion:
My belief at this point is that either both of us should be considered 3RR (if each one of my reverts is counted for "1", then we both 3RR'ed, him first), or only him (if my revert count gets some relativization) – but not just me, since he initiated the 3RR. (Thank you for going through this, I realize it's rather lame and boring, but I believe that if we don't defend the basics such as official nationality, we're going nowhere.)
— ] <sup>]</sup> @ 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Komusou is a rather new editor (since 4 May) and may not have been warned of 3RR before violating it. --] 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
::This was intended as a warning; and Komusou ] shortly thereafter. But as long as he stops, I'm content. ] <small>]</small> 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
::I leave the substance of this report, and the tit-for-tat involved, up to the admins. As I said above: my first edit was a completely independent solution to Komusou's clumsy wording, independent of any editor of three weeks ago; my third edit was intended as a compromise, based on the encyclopedic wording of the Britannica. The present wording, which has the support of every editor on the talk page, possibly excluding Komusou, has neither adjective; I prefer it to anything I wrote. ] <small>]</small> 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
::However, in checking whether this has been responded to, I find by Komusou, which compares a mildly worded complaint about other edits of his to the proceedings at Guantanamo. Can someone please have a word with him? ] <small>]</small> 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per ]. Pmanderson did not violate 3RR policy. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:24-hour block )===
{{Article|Gnome}}. {{3RRV|75.112.134.14}}: Time reported: 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
*8th revert:
*9th revert:
*10th revert:
*11th revert:
*12th, 13th more of the same
*14th revert:
The guy is on a rampage. He was warned about vandalism and about 3RR. ]<small><sup>(]/])</sup></small> 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: No violation, page protected)===
*] violation and edit warring on
{{Article|Template:Countries and territories of Middle America}}.
{{3RRV|Corticopia}}
*Previous version reverted to:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
Corticopia has been edit warring and violating 3RR several times in the past as you can check here . He is a very uncivil user and uses bad words and profanity and personal attacks even on edit summaries and he has been blocked for that .
The 3RR policy says that constant edit warring and 3RR violations must be punished accordingly to the amount of times it has been repeated and this would be his 9th 3RR violation. He has been blocked for 1 month in the past. Much of his violations has not been reported because I guess the new users that he edit wars with don't know about this policy.
And the user is well aware of this and other policies, he just reported another user for 3RR but didn't report himself. ] 23:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:The Virgin Mary this editor isn't -- I would state the obvious if I actually reverted more than 3 times, which I didn't. Of course, this editor is retaliating against my report of his comrade above. Given the controversies surrounding these topics, Jcmenal should've known better than to not discuss edits beforehand: stupidly, he misleadingly tagged his POV retrofit of the template as 'cleanup', and falls back onto the crutch of the same tired rhetoric. As well, the reporter herein has also been blocked, edits anonymously (using a number of IPs), and is one of a clutch of boosterist editors (include Jcmenal) who have continuous challenges regarding Mexico's place (geographically, or through various metrics) in the Americas or on the world stage. 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*There is no violation on Corticopia's part, but I have fully protected the page. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===
*] violation and edit warring on
{{Article|User_talk:70.20.46.65}}.
{{3RRV|User_talk:70.20.46.65}}
*Previous version reverted to:
Check , keeps making improper edits in articles, then when is warned, just BLANKS user page. 10 blanks from 24 SEP to 28 SEP.
:This page is for reporting violations of ] and requires evidence in the form of specific diffs that constitute the violation. Please note as per ], a user has wide latitude to remove material from their own pages. ] 02:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:No violation)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Instant Runoff Voting}}. {{3RRV|72.75.46.82}}: Time reported: 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
instead of diffs, I have posted the Contributions pages which list all the edits. This is clearly a single user on an IP pool, so there are three IPs.
] 2 reverts, one edit which was actually an extensive revision including exact reversions but not stated as such. This edit was not a part of the original complaint (and not within 24 hrs).
] 4 reverts
] 4 reverts
User has not been specifically warned on the "user pages." User has different IP with each session, there is no reason to expect next login will have same IP, though it is possible.
The first set of six gave as a reason, "Avid proponent of other systems trying to change article," which is no reason for reversion at all, inappropriate material would be. Next four reverts gave no reason.
Notice was made of 3RR policy on Talk page after the first six reverts. User has posted to Talk page (from 72.75.46.82). ] 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:These all appear to be good faith edits, I don't see anything that resembles ]. Once again, I urge you to ] on the part of this user and to engage to find consensus. Also, please see the format of other successful reports on this page, it will make it much easier for the investigating admin in the future. In particular, list the specific ] and the times they were made. ] 13:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:As per talk page, I suggest that Abd may want to seek help at ] to address what he believes may be biased edits from an editor with ulterior motives. ] 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: Page protected)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Race and ancient Egypt}}. {{3RRV|Taharqa}}: Time reported: 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
^^Not a new user, however note was still left warning of the reverts.
] continues to revert material added by another user to the ] article. NOTE, This would be the from this user in the past 5 months. I believe this should be considered when determining duration of potential block. Longest was for 5 days. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This report is misguided for two reasons..
* The page is now protected, pending discussion and compromise (which I've been pleading for from the beginning, even on his talk page).
* He's guilty of the same thing.
^Removal of entire section..
^^
^^These two are back to back (probably can count as one), reverting material that was removed..
2 of the last 3 concern the revisions that he's reporting on, and the last one is a removal of cited material that was restored only hours prior. All with in the past 24. I left him a message on his talk page, giving him the benefit of the doubt and pleading for discussion and compromise and he seemed hip to that actually.
With the protection, I feel that it will give us time to discuss any disputes and gain a bit of common ground, in the absence of edit warring or content disputes.] 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*The page has been protected by {{admin|MastCell}}. Also, I don't believe Taharqa violated 3RR. The first edit, to my knowledge, was not a revert. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
::That's incorrect, The first revert was which was in response to information added by ]. This is clearly a violation of 3RR. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::My mistake. I should have looked at the size of text for each edit. It was clearly 4 reverts, but protection has done its job. No need for a 3RR block. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 23:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree, I left a note on your talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:After looking at the history page, it appears that ] made a straightforward ] violation, protecting the page is actually indirectly punishing ] and the others editing that page for another editor's mistake. ] 01:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
::It's a content dispute, not a mistake. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:Right, a content dispute that resulted in a violation of the 3RR. I doubt Taharqa meant to violate it, so I'd call it a mistake. When an article says something we as editors don't like but two or more other editors support with references, we're not supposed to keep reverting. ] 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
By my count only one editor has violated 3RR, so the editors are unable to edit the article in question as a result of one person's mistake...<br /> (It is a revert, the info was added earlier by another editor. )<br />
<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />] 03:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:I know Taharqa violated 3RR. I acknowledged that earlier. This block will not help the discussion process at all. The sooner a resolution is made on the article's talk page, then the sooner the article will be unprotected. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 08:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: User blocked)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Logical connective}}. {{3RRV|122.163.102.174}} {{3RRV|122.163.102.167}} {{3RRV|122.163.102.102}} : Time reported: 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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: (as 174)
*2nd revert: (as 167)
*3rd revert: (as 102)
*4th revert: (as 102)
*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.
*Pointless because he hasn't repeated IP addresses.
Repeated removal of ]'s crediting of text to his web site. I assume this means he's giving permission for the text to occur here. Otherwise, removal of the #Venn diagram tables may be required as a copyvio. — ] | ] 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
*I have blocked the IPs for 24 hours per ], and I have semi-protected the page (it dawned on me after I did the blocks that I could have just protected the page). <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 1 week)===
*] violation on
]. {{3RRV|142.68.12.214}}: Time reported: 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
Also, The http://en.wikipedia.org/John_W._Morgan has been reverted many times. These reverts go to non-sencal down right silly vandalism. This person needs to be stoped. I could have 7 examples for this stuff.
Keeps reverting artciles to include either unsourced, unverifable information that means nothing to the article, or out right vandalizing pages. ] 01:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*I have blocked the user for 1 week for violating ] and adding ]. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 01:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Point Roberts, Washington}}. {{3RRV|Gnatdroid}}: Time reported: 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
I made several edits to the page in question. Some of the edits I made was removing external links from within the article. The user in question has reverted those removals three times. I wrote on his talk page regarding this and in the talk page of the article. Even after these two attempts to politely request he stop, he still reverted my changes. ] 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*The user has not yet violated ] because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 02:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ]Result - not warned (still) ===
*] violation on
{{Article|Ustaše}}. {{3RRV|Brkić}}: Time reported: 11:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*1 revert
*2 revert
*3 revert
*4 revert
*5 revert
From 19:55 of 28 september user:Brkic is forcing that article must have statement from obscure book which is without confirmation on internet (or better to say google). ] 11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*User not warned ] <sup>'']''</sup> 11:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry for deleting your first decision but I will ask again that somebody look this because this time he has been warned and he has again reverted.
*6 revert
::It is possible to put this article in semi-protected mode for long period of time because it is popular with blocked users which are coming again and again. For this it is enough to see history page of article. Users ] and ] are blocked, ] is vandal which nobody has asked to be blocked and now this. All in less of 40 days we are having 4 "new" users which play with article.--] 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*Rjecina - you haven't warned them. They are a new user so a block without warning violates ]. If you want the page protected you need ]. Go and warn them and then you can come back if they reoffend but you will need a new report. Do not reopen this again. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: No violation)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Hotaki dynasty}}. {{3RRV|Anoshirawan}}: Time reported: 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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.-->
This user, despite the fact that he has already been blocked three times for edit warring, continues to revert the ] article to a version based on a work of fiction.
Here are some examples of his earlier reverts. I have not included all reverts, but you can check the the article history, the revert war goes back all the way through the month of july.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Here are his most recent reverts:
*
*
*
There has been an RFC for this article. All those involved agreed that Anoshirawan's version was wrong, and that his arguments were unconvincing, and yet he continues to revert the article mindlessly. This is the worst edit war I've ever seen and it's time someone put a stop to it.
He has also been revert warring on the ] article. Here are the reverts:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
This time, in his haste to erase the word "Afghan", he has been reverting to a version where large portions of content have been deleted, thus badly disrupting the article.
He seems to have made reverting a way of life! It is clear from this and from his three previous blocks, that this user has no respect for the wikipedia rules of conduct. Isn't it possible to do something about this outrageous person?] 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*They have not violated 3RR at this time. They have 3 reverts spread over 3 days. This board is not a form of dispute resolution. Try and RFC or mediation. This report lacks timestamps and is very confused. Keep it short and simple in future please. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
: Strange, I thought this rule existed to prevent edit warring. I must have misread the part that says "''Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive''". I don't know what you mean by "very confused", I've clearly exposed two separate edit wars, OK there are no time stamps, but you can check the times from each link. I was'nt suggesting you resolve any dispute, just put an end to the edit warring. But if you consider that 3-month long edit wars are OK, and you are content to let trolls screw up wikipedia, then that's your responsability.] 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: Final Warning)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Bhutanese democracy}}. {{3RRV|Bramlet Abercrombie}}: Time reported: 17:15, 29 September 2007 (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:
Warnings issued: n/a because user responded to another 3RR report three days ago.
A long history of edit wars without talking. I reported the user 3 days ago for 3RR for a separate violation but I withdrew it when I thought
he was willing to discuss it. He tried removing other links along with these, but the above four are sufficient for a block. The user tries to
time his edits to avoid 3RR/24hr and has been blocked before. (Details on the underlying issue are at ]) --] 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC) (aka 24.61.222.132 or 71.181.46.151 when not logged in)
:Note: Previous report was to the incident board here: --] 18:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*I'm going with a final warning at this stage. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:Warned Commator, page protected)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Konstantin Tsiolkovsky}}. {{3RRV|Commator}}: Time reported: 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
This is a repeat occurance of a prveious incident. Due to lack of other interested editors, a stalemate back and forth reversion between myself and Commator has been going on for a while; the issue is the inclusion or removal of references to several non notable things in a "tributes" section of the article. Recently ] commented on the page asking for sources to assert notability, though this has been more or less ignored by Commator. ] 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
See also previous incident: ]
:'''Note:''' after my warning, Commator has his fourth revert. So no rule has been broken. However, it would still be very useful is someone else would be willing to look at the situation and leave a comment. - ] 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you for pointing that out. I have reverted my original block against ]. I urge you both to avoid reverting each other edits and to engage in consensus building to resolve disputes. ] 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I have also fully protected the page. Guys, please resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 19:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Thanks. That might help. - ] 05:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Buddhism and Hinduism}}. {{3RRV|Truthseeker81}}: Time reported: 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:
There were some intermediate edits of mine which are unrelated. The main issue is that this user has been repeating despite being told why it is unacceptable.
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
The user has already been warned, and then blocked for this exact same 3RR vio. He has been repeatedly told that using partisan websites and wikipedia for information then forwarding his own unsourced theories about the Bhagavad Gita is unacceptable. The user ignores posts to his talk page and does not use edit summaries, preferring to edit-war with myself and now another editor. ] 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:Blocked for forty-eight hours, per the evidence above. -- ''']''' 01:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24hrs/IP, 24hrs/Moro )===
*] violation on
{{Article|University of Cambridge}}. {{3RRV|65.110.155.53}}: Time reported: 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
...
*12th 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:
*Additional warning on article talk page:
Anon user wishes a certain individual to be on the short list of alumni on ] and keeps adding him. ] (]) 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:I've blocked the IP for 24 hours, as well as {{user|Moro}} who also would appear to have edit warred with him. ] ] 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Ustaše}}. {{3RRV|Brkic}}: Time reported: 23:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
*5th revert :
*Diff of 3RR warning:
Revert warring with controversial edits. // ] 23:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: 12 hours)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Indonesia}}. {{3RRV|Wikimuppy}}: Time reported: 15:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
User has been already warned twice:
* - see comment on edit
*
Editor has been ignoring comments from three other editors at ] that their additions to this article are not suitable.
(] 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
:I'm seeing roughly four 3rr specific warnings and at least five reverts. Despite wanting to 'talk', the last revert was with the comment 'right back at you', which does not indicate the editor has a grip on the policy. I've only blocked for 12 hours, and will unblock if he will refrain from any other article edits while a discussion takes place on the talk page. ] ] 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result: )===
*] violation on
{{Article|Office_Open_XML}}. {{3RRV|HAl}}: Time reported: 20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
A short explanation of the incident. ] 20:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
A discussion of this ciritism was conducted on the talk page of User HAl was against the inclusion of referenced information. I added the information. User HAl added a biased edit.his was used as the base article link. to restore NPOV , adding more information from the reference. User HAl removed the referenced information below line 494 I explained the claim was referenced and replaced the blanking of it. User Hal removed the claim again I replaced and gave
warning of 3rr. User Hal then made a 3rd revert of the edit in part below section line 494 User Hal's talk page has sections from other editors about reverting.
===] reported by ] (Result:Indefinite block)===
*] violation on
{{Article|Ehsan Aman}}. {{3RRV|Hon203}}: Time reported: 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
Note: This user is very likely a sockpuppet of {{user|Qbzad}}, who has been edit warring as far back as two weeks ago on the very same issues. This report was supposed to be for {{la|Ahmad Zahir}}, but he has only made three reverts on this article, though the edits of Qbzad go back furhter than that. 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
:Resolved, user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. ] 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
===] reported by ] (Result:1 week, warn ])===
*] violation on
{{Article|Ehsan Aman}}. {{3RRV|Anoshirawan}}: Time reported: 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
*Previous 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:
Edit warring with Hon203. ] 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:Blocked ] for 1 week, warned ], protected page. ] 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::Someone else already indef blocked him for abusive sockpuppetry, though. ] 03:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
== Example ==
<pre>
<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->
===] reported by ] (Result: )===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous 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:
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
</pre></noinclude>
==]==
I've been told/threatened not to edit the article by some editor Mikkai, or something like that. The person reverted my work, with a threat "never to do what I had done" - something to that effect. I believe he will force an editor war with me. Can I get assistance on this conflict? Thanks. --] 05:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (7 January 2025)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments: The user was warned multiple times to not insert poorly sourcedcontentious material in a page which is a living person's biography. Despite this, the user has continued to insert original research, while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.
I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: he removed my warning for whatever reason
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
Comment: This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I edited Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
WP:AVOIDEDITWAR This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. NotQualified (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They have been warned before about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024 (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of Reform UK abuse scandal, amongst other things. James McMurdock#Assault conviction
Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE."
Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
I add templates to an article with faults
The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
I notify the user
I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."
It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. MrOllie (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article 'heritability of IQ' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user CNMall41 has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. Shecose (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
Comments:
Taken from the ANI report i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
Ger2024 has been Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and violated WP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly WP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them to not engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think WP:SPA might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within 38 minutes after being inactive since May 18th, 2024 based off their user contributions history.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "←Created page with '== January 2025 == Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You didn't read the MOS:TVCAST carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user was not following the MOS:TVCAST correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Update this page
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Blocked – for a period of 3 years The range 5.187.0.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) by Ahect Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
