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

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

Revision as of 16:21, 16 January 2008 view sourceRoadcreature (talk \| contribs)4,347 edits →User:Guido den Broeder reported by User:Seicer (Result: ): fake warning← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:38, 11 January 2025 view source JJMC89 (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators345,057 edits Adding {{pp-sock}}Tag: Twinkle
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude><center>'''Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.<br/>]: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.'''<br/> '''Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.''' <br/></center>
			{{pp-sock\|small=yes}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	</noinclude>
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	]
	{{User:~~MercuryBot~~/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 64		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~72h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = 08321874666a2370a61fa7175b11c5c1
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
	=Violations=
	:Please place new reports {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can for it.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	<!--
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	-->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No block) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	{{Article\|Magyarization}}. {{3RRV\|Tankred}}: Time reported: 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	<!--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.-->

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	*No need for 3RR warning, old user already blocked for 3RR and made reports himself.
			:{{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) ==
	] broke 3RR on the article ] deleting relevant material (describing Andrej Hlinka as a controversial figure) and inserting POV information while deleting my contribution to change the meaning of my words. Also has been disruptive at the article ]. I do not want to break the rule, so please look into this. ] (]) 20:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	:I guess user Squash Racket is misleading you because of our content dispute in the article he mentioned. Only two first edits were reverts. The third edit was simple copyediting and addition of a citation. The fourth edit was expansion of a sentence based on a source cited in the article. These edits are not the same and only two of them were reverts. As to the article ], I am the original author and I do not understand how writing an article can be considered disruptive. Squash Racket is more than welcome to contribute to it in a constructive way. ] (]) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::Reverting another editor's edit more than three times is breaking this rule. ] (]) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:::Only two edits were reverts. ] (]) 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	Earlier I tried to resolve the dispute at the ] (see section "Černová event as a proof of the 'violent' Magyarization"), but received no answer from him. ] (]) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

	:You have never replied to a comment by another user at that page. Anyway, the 3RR noticeboard is not a dispute resolution procedure. ] (]) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	::At the time of my talk page attempt I had a dispute with Tankred (see dates and diffs), not an anonymous IP. ] (]) 18:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::The violation is stale, as it happened a few days ago. I'm leaving this one alone. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 17:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No Block) ==

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] violation on
			:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Article\|Fibromyalgia}}. {{3RRV\|Djma12}}: Time reported: 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	<!--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\|Sokoreq}}
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Previous revert: 04:18, 8 January 2008

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert: 20:09, 13 January 2008
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	*2rd revert: 13:15, 14 January 2008
			# {{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"
	*3th revert: 14:07, 14 January 2008
			# {{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:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

	] is repeatedly re-adding a text that was removed before because it is not supported by the sources. He claims that he has consensus for this text, but this is not the case. The text differs significantly from the quote that he put forward for RFC, and no consensus was reached on the original quote either. Note that the source is already mentioned elsewhere in the text with a different (correct) interpretation. ] (]) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Rebuttal''' - The RFC discussion can be ]. The edit history speaks for itself. ] <sup>(])</sup> 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	:Only three reverts here, no 3RR breach. Users will be warned about 3RR and votestacking. - ] 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours ) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on
			#
	{{Article\|Comparison of high definition optical disc formats}}. {{3RRV\|Harumphy}}: Time reported: 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

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

	*1st ~~revert~~:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			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)
	Apparently, he doesn't agree with the concensus found on the discussion page. The user may also be a sockpuppet of ], a user recently blocked as per ]. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	*User blocked for 24 hours due to clear edit warring. ] ] 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	*:It may have been appropriate to warn others too- others were inappropriately reverting, including Roguegeek. It's not very cool to report someone for edit warring when you're also doing it. ] ] 00:15, 15 January 2008 (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)
	== ] reported by ] (]) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Result:no block) ==

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|The Streets}}. {{3RRV\|Faithlessthewonderboy}}: Time reported: 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	<!--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:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*2nd revert:
			## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
	*3rd revert:
			## {{diff2\|1268202556\|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
	*4th revert:
			## {{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:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{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:'''
	Constant discussions on appropriateness of word "tender" in this article, which "faithless" has backed out of, as per . Followed by un-backed up claims of meatpuppetry, and canvassing (whilst clearly being canvassed on his own page). Refusal to participate in discussion re tender and constant reverting (2 more times yesterday, plus reverts by his friends and bots). Please block this person. ] (]) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:I have not violated 3RR, as I have been removing blatant vandalism. A simple look at the page history will confirm this. Please also note that several other editors (including ClueBot) have been fighting vandalism on this page. This is a ridiculous charge by an admitted meatpuppeteer who has been vandalizing this article for literally months now and has been blocked for it already. User has repeatedly accused me of running ClueBot which, while quite a compliment, is obviously inaccurate. ] ] 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I don't really think this can be considered blatant vandalism, but I am still unwilling to block for removing such a blatantly unencyclopedic language as this, especially when the IPs supporting this change have effectively stated an unwillingness to listen at all to the other side, essentially saying that because they disagree, there is no consensus. At best, both parties are equally guilty here. ] ] 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::A little research with my main man whois suggests we have a lot of dynamic IPs here (which we pretty much could have guessed from the content, anyway). As this is clearly disruptive, I've semiprotected the article. ] ] 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::Don't get me wrong, the simple addition of the offending word would not be vandalism. However, there have which couldn't be described any other way. On top of that, this IP has already been blocked because of this. It's not the addition of the word that's vandalism, but rather the editor's actions long after a consensus has been reached that he didn't like. Cheers, ] ] 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Even so, it's not really vandalism; rather, it falls under the heading of disruption. ] ] 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	There can never be consensus whilst there is disagreement. Those who seek consensus (such as said IPs) discuss the change. Those who don't (such as faithless). At best both parties are equally guilty. At worst, Faithless is falsely accusing me of meetpuppetry. '''Semi-protection , and I quote, "should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes."''' Please revise this decision. ] (]) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	BTW, I don't know what a Dynamic IP is, but I have a feeling I am being accused of something else. What does this mean? ] (]) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
	:You can continue making your case, but please stop misrepresenting me. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement; if it did, there would never be consensus on anything. It means general agreement. Every editor who has weighed in on the topic has disagreed with you. Consensus has been reached, which is why I don't want to continue rehashing this same tired argument. I have suggested ''several'' times that you seek ]. You have refused to do this. Instead, you admittedly enlisted your friends to engage in edit warring and you've made absolutely baseless reports at the admin noticeboard. This (hopefully) will be my last word on the matter: if you disagree with the community's decision, please seek dispute resolution. That is the proper avenue here. If you're not willing to do that, please let this go. ] ] 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	Consensus seeks the agreement of all by resolving the objections of the minority. In what way have you done this? In what way have you resolved my objections? By reporting me, having me banned and ignoring what I said? And what of the countless other people who made the same edit as I? You clearly have NO understanding of the word consensus, and should give up your adminship now. Or at least look into what the word means. Once again, I ask you were I have said that I enlisted my friends. That is an assumption you make. Falsely. ] (]) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result:72 hours) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Mitt Romney}}. {{3RRV\|Ferrylodge}}: Time reported: 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			#

	*1st ~~revert~~:		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:





			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	This user is not new to the world of edit warring. Ferrylodge is known for his contentious editing and has been blocked four times previously. <s>I can not see the blocks myself as I am not an administrator.</s> User was banned by the community for disruptive and tendentious editing but is now on probation. User is currently banned from all abortion related topics. On this current article, user has filled up three pages of archive material and was one of the ones responsible for the month long protection of the Mitt Romney page. Article was unprotected because of a consensus reached and agree to by all editors. User has been trying to undue the consensus for many weeks now. He broke the 3rr rule today while trying to undue the original consensus. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions.] (]) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Turtlescrubber and I both received warnings at our respective talk pages regarding 3RR from Gwernol (Turtlescrubber deleted his warning). Neither of us has reverted since the warnings. Moreover, . Even if it could be argued somehow that I otherwise would have been in violation of 3RR, the edits and the edit summaries show that Turtlescrubber was engaged in vandalism (reversion of which cannot violate 3RR), given that Turtlescrubber was making wildly inaccurate edits to sections of the article that he did not even have any objection against (e.g. the "Personal life" section). This is a frivolous complaint.] (]) 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::That admin you bring up is your good friend and also takes the same side as you on the article talk page (also a brand new admin). I was not engaged in vandalism and I would ask you to stop making personal attacks. Frivolous complaint? You edit warred and then broke 3rr. I was polite and civil in my edit summaries and warned you multiple times before you violated the 3rr. The article is going to be protected once again because of your edit warring. ] (]) 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin named Gwernol before today. And I don't recall ever having any contact with the admin John Carter before January 11. I don't think these insinuations of yours are helpful, Turtlescrubber.] (]) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Gwernol warned you about 3rr, what does that have to do with anything? You and John Carter are friends as evidenced by your talk page, the mitt romney talk page discussion and your voting for his adminship like two days ago. Please, let's be honest here. John also supports your position rather fervently. Hardly a neutral admin in all this. ] (]) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::There's no need to drag out this discussion. You've made your complaint.] (]) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::If I didn't have to correct half-truths then I wouldn't comment at all. I am done arguing with you for the night. ] (]) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	I count three reverts apiece, but whatever ... guys, you both know the rules and you both know what you're doing. Talk it out on the talk page and quit reverting each other repeatedly. Someone would probably complain if I were to make the block myself, but come on guys ... this is ridiculous - you both know better. (24hr/ea would be my block in case anyone cares.) --] (]) 03:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Um, he has 4 reverts. He started to edit war. He was warned and he violated the 3rr. Seems pretty clear cut to me. ] (]) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Even if he does (and I count one initial edit + 3 reverts, but I could be looking at it wrong), 3RR is not license to revert exactly 3 times. You both were revert warring and three reverts inside of 30 minutes is inherently disruptive. --] (]) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::Turtlescrubber, you were engaged in vandalism. Or do you have some explanation of why you edited the "Personal life" section? Just to get on my nerves?] (]) 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::What is wrong with you? You win. I quit the project. ] (]) 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Taking into account Ferrylodge's behaviour and his history, along with the ongoing ANI discussion, I've blocked for 72 hours. Of course, this is subject to review by other admins. ] ] 06:25, 15 January 2008 (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: ) ==

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Frank Rynne}}. {{3RRV\|BKLisenbee}}: Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka}}. {{3RRV\|BKLisenbee}}: Time reported: 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			:]
	<!--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.-->
			:] 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)
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
			::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
			::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
			::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
			::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
			::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
			::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
			::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
			::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
			::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
			::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{re\|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
			*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
			*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
			*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
			*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
			*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
			*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
			*::::# I notify the user
			*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
			*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
			*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
			*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
			*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
			*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
			*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages
	See

	and

	Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even.
	BKLisenbee (Talk \| contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	This user refused mediation call by ] on his talk page. For mediation page see ]. A severe block is needed.
	] (]) 03:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Could someone explain what the alleged BLP issue is here that you guys refer to in your edit summaries? (Removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR.) --] (]) 04:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	::User places external link alleging illegal act by page's subject on ]. ] (]) 11:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	* '''Procedural note''': It's a lot easier to assess a 3RR notice if the evidence presented is in the form of diffs (with timestamps) rather than with histories. Thanks. - ] 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Boston University}}. {{3RRV\|User:24.60.254.74}}: Time reported: 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268291574\|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
			# {{diff2\|1268272867\|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
			# {{diff2\|1268269093\|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268248948\|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:


			:'''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)
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	User wishes to change "on the Charles River" to "near the Charles River". Despite two requests in edit summaries to bring to talk page, and warning of 3RR, user has engaged in edit war and broken 3RR.] (]) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
			:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Blocked 31 hours. --] (]) 04:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
			:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Darragh MacAnthony}}. {{3RRV\|Rufuskhan}}: Time reported: 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''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.-->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning: ~~(not a diff as only edit)~~
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and ] over the past few weeks as the shows. At this time Rufuskhan appears to have made a total of 40 edits over the past 2 weeks alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. ] (]) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating ] and ] on ]. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hours) ==
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Darragh MacAnthony}}. {{3RRV\|Chakanobody}}: Time reported: 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	<!--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:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
	*2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
	*3rd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning: (not a diff as only edit)

	These are only the most recent reverts in an edit war between this user and ] (see previous report) over the past few weeks as the shows. At this time Chakanobody appears to have made a total of 20 edits over the past week alone and 2 edits since the 3RR warning. ] (]) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating ] and ] on ]. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Danny Messer}}. {{3RRV\|1csimfan}}: Time reported: 20:24, 15 January 2008

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:That is because {{u\|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			:{{u\|Shecose}}, {{tqq\|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::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) ==
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	1csimfan has been repeatedly editing the Danny Messer article daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of POV pushing. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per ]. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
			# "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)"

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] violation on
			#: "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."
	{{Article\|Lindsay Monroe}}. {{3RRV\|1csimfan}}: Time reported: 20:24, 15 January 2008
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*1st revert:
	*2nd ~~revert:~~		Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			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.
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			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).
	1csimfan has been editing the Lindsay Monroe article multiple times daily since at least December 27, strictly for the intent of pushing their POV as fact. It is also possible that this user has used the username Roximonoxide as a sockpuppet for the same purpose.

			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.
	*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per ]. If the user continues to edit after the block, I will protect the pages. I only chose not to protect the pages in this situation, because the user has been edit warring on multiple articles, and has made a minimal attempt at discussion. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 20:59, 15 January 2008 (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 ].
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Latino (demonym)}}. {{3RRV\|BTNCOURT}}: Time reported: 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			*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 />
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Theonewithreason}}

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	User BTNCOURT (and maybe some sockpuppets) insists, against all other user, to add a disputed, non-encyclopedic and normative section. ] (]) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			#
	:Looking at the history of this article, this meme looks familiar. In any event, the user is blocked. --] (]) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			#
			#

	== ] reported by ] (Result:Case sent to RFCU) ==

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|List of cities in Australia by population}}. {{3RRV\|L.Wadsworth}}: Time reported: 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!--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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st ~~revert~~:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	*Previous Diff of 3RR warning related also to Hervey Bay, Queensland insertions (provided as evidence as to his gaining recent earlier advice of 3RR rule):
	Editor L.Wadsworth has a specific interest in the area of ]. He has persisted in adding detail concerning that location - in the case of this 3RR report to ], but he has also made similar reversions stopping just before breaching the 3RR rule at ]. It appears that he has now attempted to circumvent the rule by editing under his IP account (whilst not logged on). His page has a number of 3RR warnings. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:For clarification purposes only, it should be noted that the information that ] insists on adding to ] is incorrect. His additions involve replacing properly cited and verified data with his own versions. This is why other editors have reverted his edits. His errors have been explained to him both on ] and on ] yet he insists on reverting the correct figures to his own. --] (]) 16:10, 16 January 2008 (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)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			:{{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 ) ==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Chronic fatigue syndrome}}. {{3RRV\|Guido den Broeder}}: Time reported: 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lee Jung-jin (footballer)}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sillypickle123}}
	<!--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:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	: These are based upon the last 24:28 hours:
			# {{diff2\|1268583865\|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:*
			# {{diff2\|1268451301\|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:*
			# {{diff2\|1268450870\|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:*
			# {{diff2\|1268449472\|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:*
			# {{diff2\|1268448980\|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:*
	:*
	:*

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			# {{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:'''
	The user has continued to edit war at ] and other related articles. He is the subject of numerous disputes at his ], has filed requests at ], filed frivolous requests against disputed editors at ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268447335\|diff=1268451519\|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
	:* Note: The user has a previous 31h block on 14 December for 5 reverts within 24 hours at the same article, with disruption to talk pages. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:**At the time, I did not understand how 3RR was counted, and did not receive a warning. It was a simple mistake for which I apologized. Note, by the way, that ]'s warning was immediately followed by this report, and therefore constitutes a fake warning. ] (]) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:] is bandwagoning on a threatening editwar that I have prevented by starting RfC's, which he ignores. I am not the subject of any disputes and do not make frivolous requests. The diffs he mentions above pertain to several different content disputes on a very long article, all of which are presently discussed on the talk page, and do not constitute a 3RR violation (in fact, I am trying to follow 2RR these days). The content issue on ] is unrelated and has already been solved to my satisfaction. ] (]) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
			* {{AN3\|b\| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	:* = fix where statement is erroneously attributed to author (issue 1)
	:* = restoring link to documented outbreaks which user is denying (issue 2 - same section as issue 1, but different change)
	:* = issue 2
	:* = vandalism fix (reinstation of undisputed misquotation of criteria) (issue 3)
	:* = issue 3 (note that user withdrew)
	:* = reinstating sourced CDC quote (issue 4)
	:* = pov-fix to indicate validity issue with source (issue 5)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
	:I am requesting that ] reverts his own edit. It is good practice not to make contested edits while an RfC is running. His edit also includes reverting an undisputed edit. ] (]) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	::Note that the edit marked above as "vandalism fix" is in fact a reversion of a constructive edit by an established editor. ] (]) 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::It is not, I undid a '''revert''' of a constructive edit. In his haste to help his friend, user - who did not partake in any discussion - didn't notice that he destroyed an undisputed edit as well. ] (]) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::: You are misinterpreting ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Right. Please note ]'s further disruptive behaviour by votestacking and discrediting on ] . ] (]) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Winaldcruz088}}
	= Example =
	<pre>

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268697942\|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
			# {{diff2\|1268688649\|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
			# {{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:'''
	*] violation on
			# {{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 ].
	{{Article\|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

			'''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)'"
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268690605\|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
			# {{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:'''
	<!--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.-->

	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			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)
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			: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)
	A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
			: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)

	<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

	</pre>

Latest revision as of 06:38, 11 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating hoaxes, adding off-topic information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#User BubbleBabis. Aneirinn (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Cambial Yellowing (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"
18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267995628 by Hipal (talk)"
17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hipal (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declined Garudam, who is aware of CTOPS as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has said he is "considering taking a break" and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I edited Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.

WP:AVOIDEDITWAR This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.

There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. NotQualified (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

They have been warned before about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

""" NotQualified (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024 (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."

Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of Reform UK abuse scandal, amongst other things. James McMurdock#Assault conviction

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE."

Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.

"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024"

Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.

"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"

3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No violation. This report is a mess. Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
I add templates to an article with faults

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line

They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.

I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.

Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case

I notify the user

I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy

Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level

You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem

I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."

That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.

I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Genetic influence"
23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268251743 by MrOllie (talk)"
21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Comment: I tried had a discussion with the IP editor on their talk page about misunderstandings on the definition on 'environment' which they seemed to come around on. But then they started adding in race science in other articles and edit warring there too. Blatant troll WP:NOTHERE. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.

And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at Genome-wide association study, not one as you claim. MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. MrOllie (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article 'heritability of IQ' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Page move-protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also note the SPI case CNMall41 (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user CNMall41 has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. Shecose (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I am going to advise that we delay any action here until Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shecose is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:12, 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)

Shecose, to satisfy his personal ego (above and in Special:Diff/1268349248 too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. Shecose (talk) 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. 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)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:00 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Taken from the ANI report i had submitted when I should have submitted here.

Ger2024 has been Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and violated WP:3RR (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly WP:NPOV despite my direct requests asking them to not engage in an edit war and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.

In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).

Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.

End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think WP:SPA might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within 38 minutes after being inactive since May 18th, 2024 based off their user contributions history.

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

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

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

User:Theonewithreason reported by User:PhilipPirrip (Result: Filer informed)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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)

Theonewithreason, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Filer informed about WP:ONUS/WP:BLPRESTORE; closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Sillypickle123 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: blocked indefinitely )

User being reported: Sillypickle123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268451486 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268451068 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268450442 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268449111 by JacktheBrown (talk)"
21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268447167 by Tacyarg (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lee Jung-jin (footballer)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123

Comments:

Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/_dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Winaldcruz088 reported by User:JRGuevarra (Result: )

User being reported: Winaldcruz088 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Guest cast */"
01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Guest cast */"
01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Guest cast */"
2. 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Guest cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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)'"

01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"

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)

Categories: