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 03:04, 11 June 2008 editLulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,790 edits WorkerBee74 on Barack Obama← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,733 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{moveprotected\|small=yes}}
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	</noinclude>
	]
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 74		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~72h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = b03db258cd90da0d9e168ffa42a33ae9
	\|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. -->
	__TOC__
	=Violations=
	:Please place ] {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can for it.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
	<!--
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	-->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: Stale. ) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV\|Andyvphil}}: Time reported: 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

	''Diffs ~~are~~ ~~listed~~ ~~from~~ ~~oldest to newest, dates are in UTC~~''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ revert "bold" deletion of Ayers")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Claim that there is consensus to omit Ayers from this article is bogus.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "undo deletions performed by edit warring hagiographers")</small>

	Although not strictly a violation of ] (the editor in question waited 24 hours and 10 minutes before performing the same revert again), this is still a clear case of edit warring (the reason for 3RR in the first place), and for exactly the same material as he was . These particular edits are both contentious and tendentious, and violate ]. -- ] (]) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:Actually, the third revert wouldn't have violated 3RR even if were within 24 hours of the first. Takes four to do that, so there was no reason for me to "wait". I just happpen to get in from work about the same time every day. Anyway, if you look at the talk page you will find that Scjessey offered seven alternatives for the treatment of Bill Ayers in ] and got virtually no support for his preferred option (#1) of no mention at all of the former Weatherman in Obama's bio. Despite the ongoing discussion and majority opposition to his course of action (even Scjessey had given up on #1 in favor of an excessively anodyne #3) Shem decided it was time to initiate ] by deleting all mention of Ayers from the page.. BRD of course allows for "R" (my first edit above) as well as "B" and is supposed to be followed by "D", not immediate repetition of "B" until it sticks. Both Kossak4Truth and I have restored Ayers to the page, and the minority of editors (the poll was quite clear in it's result -- "no mention" got maybe two votes out of about 20) who want no mention of Ayers have edit warred it off. And as I speak, it is still off, since I won't violate 3RR (and indeed have not violated 2RR) to restore it. A sockpuppet IP reported me for "violating 3RR" a bit further up this page on the basis of '''one''' revert, and now Scjessey wants me blocked for three (not four) in 25. He has himself made three reverts in the last 17 hours. He is clearly engaging in knowing abuse of process...as can be seen by examining Scjessey's own edits:

	# <small>(edit summary: "rm original research")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Campaign */ - restored original section title of "U.S. Senate campaign" - weird that it should've been changed in the first place")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 217381741 by ] - restore image order (can't have people's backs facing text, looks weird)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */ rm absolutely ludicrous categories")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 217474873 by ] (]) - rv category insanity")</small>
	:] (]) 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	I think an article ban would be better than blocking. Andyvphil, you haven't had one '''single''' edit that lasted. You've been reverted by '''numerous''' users. Do you think it's time to quit (editing that article, I don't mean Misplaced Pages)? There must be '''something''' wrong with your edits if you're being reverted all the time. Not everyone is a '''vandal''' or an '''edit warrer''', do you realise this? No violation by either but I think a voluntary article ban for both user's would save them from being blocked. ]] 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I'm sorry, but even a cursory glance at the edit summaries of my edits above will see there is no edit warring on my part. Two of those edits concern minor formatting issues, and the other two concern miscategorizations. Furthermore, you will see from the article's ] that I am engaged in a lengthy consensus-building exercise, ''which I initiated'', and in which Andyvphil has taken almost no part it. I filed this report because Andyvphil was obstructing the consensus-building process with identical contentious edits concerning the material being discussed, rather than revert any of those edits myself. -- ] (]) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	Yes, I'm sure your reverts were good reverts and my reverts were bad reverts. In your mind.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	Noroton has for several weeks vigorously pursued the dispute resolution process and has been tireless in refuting the bogus arguments of Scjessey and others that it is somehow inappropriate to clearly describe Ayers in "Obama's" article. There is little reason for me to duplicate his thankless and unrewarded effort, though I have chimed in where I have had something to add.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

	To repeat, as I've pointed out, since Scjessey offered seven options for treating Ayers in the Early Life section of ] (which was ''not'' how the subject came to be discussed, contrary to Scjessey's implication) both the mention there and the mention in the Presidential Campaign sections have been removed by the hagigraphic clique which "owns" the article with no regard for the ongoing discussion of how to treat the subject, which discussion has decisively rejected Scjessey's preferred option of deleting all mention of Ayers. I's been six months since the clique first deleted my contribution to the article of the information, cited to the ''NYTimes'', that Obama's pastor and church were Afrocentric and highly political (this was before the videos hit and brought the significance of those facts to national attention) and I've had plenty of time to conclude that AGF-based effort is wasted on the likes of Scjessey. I'm obliged by the rules of Misplaced Pages not to say what I really think of them, but I'm not obliged to conceed their ownership of the page. ] (]) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
	:If nobody plans on doing anything here, I'm going to suggest closing it as moot, since 24 hours has passed and neither party has edited the article. --] (]) 12:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I have every intention of restoring mention of Ayers name to Barack Obama, in accord with NPOV. Not mentioning Ayers has only minority support, but I would not be dissuaded even if the local claque of Obama campaign volunteers mustered a local majority. "Rough consensus" is determined after examaining the qualty of the arguments, and theirs are indefensible. ] (]) 07:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:::Well I don't think I've ever seen such an emphatic declaration of the intent to edit war before. Incredible arrogance. -- ] (]) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::You're in the minority, Scjessey. You cannot claim consensus. Furthermore, Anonymous Dissident (an admin) has clearly stated that the material can be included without violating ] if neutrally written and reliably sourced. Since you wrote Options No. 2 through No. 6 on Ayers, I think you'll concede that they're neutrally written and there is abundant RS material out there. The only problem is deciding which of the multitude of reliable sources should be cited, and taking care of edit warring POV pushers like you. ] (]) 13:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	This is stale unless someone wishes to submit a new report with fresh diffs. And, guys, please take the discussion elsewhere. ]] 16:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined, request review) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Carl Freer}}. {{3RRV\|Truthmaker1}}: Time reported: 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous ~~version~~ ~~reverted~~ to: ~~<!-- This is MANDATORY. -->~~		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

			<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 />
	<!--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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			: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)
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			::{{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) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	:{{AN3\|declined}} The user in question is reverting away from a version of the article that has a clear negative slant and in which undue weight in this short article is given to criticism of the subject. Consequently, his reverts are exempt from the 3-revert-rule. See ] and ]. However, this is not a cut-and-dried case and I invite further review. ] (]) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
	::'''Comment.''' This article has been controversial for BLP reasons, but I don't see Truthmaker1's repeated removal of the reference to the Times article as having a BLP justification. The forgery charge is supported by that article. Reliable sources do indicate that this man has had a checkered history. The version to which Truthmaker1 reverted appears sanitized. Due to the complexity of Freer's dealings, it is possible that the details of his past troubles are still not exactly correct in the article. But deleting the Times reference can't be a reasonable step to take in fixing that. ] (]) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	There is NO evidence he had a checkered past. A gag order was instituted on Freer during the Gizmondo investigation by the court appointed liquidators. Therefore the articles cited were created without any way for Freer to pursue justice and keep them fair. The 2 journalists in the articles you cite are under indictment and awaiting trial for slander. This is NOT sufficient material to warrant publication of for you (the editors of Wiki) to assess him as having a "checkered" past. I will contact Freer and urge him to pursue a legal action against Wiki for slander if these false entries are not removed instantly. ] (]) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Truthmaker1

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
			# {{diff2\|1268002110\|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Mecca}}. {{3RRV\|Yahel Guhan}}: Time reported: 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:Please note the user reverted the same material 4 times in 24 hours and 43 minutes.
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:In each revert, the user adds the following material:
	<blockquote>This law has been criticized for religious discrimination against non-muslims. Freedom House showed on its website, on a page tiled "Religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia", a picture of a sign showing Muslim-only and non-Muslim roads.</blockquote>

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning: I warned the user twice before making this report: , saying that I will not report him/her if he/she self-reverted.] (]) 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	::First of all, I never violated the 3rr rule, as my edits are not within a 24 hour period. Second, you are an equally active member in the dispute, as you alone have reverted the inclusion each time I added it ever since the first time I added it. Not to mention you recently got away with 2 3rr violations without being blocked. ] (]) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
	::In the last 40 hours I've made 3 reverts to the article while you've made 4 in just over 24 hours. Secondly, I'm giving you a chance to correct yourself. If I was given the chance to do so, I would only be too glad to self-revert.] (]) 05:38, 7 June 2008 (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 .
	:::NO. I made 3 reverts, not 4 in 24 hours, and so have you. You are probably just waiting for me to be blocked, or an hour to pass before you revert me agian. Instead you make more false allegations of a non-real 3rr violation. Conviently just one day after your incorrect stalking report. This is simple math; it is 3, not 4. ] (]) 05:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			: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)
	:Note to admins, Bless Sins appears to be forum shopping for a block of Yahel Guhan. See also: ] (]) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
	::Re: blocking: I've stated 3 times now that I will retract this report if Yahel self-reverts. Had I wanted to see the user get blocked I wouldn't have have warned him twice (, ) before coming here.] (]) 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			*:“ 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”
	:::You want your way in the article, and am willing to make up allegations of a falsified 3rr report in order to get it. You want that clause deleted inspite of it being well sourced and within wiki policies. Warnings are a required step in making 3rr reports, and even though you did the math incorrectly, you know a warning is required before a block is ever made. I love how you attempt to hide your real intentions. ] (]) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			*: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.
	::::You are well aware of the 3 revert rule, and have been blocked for it in the past. Hence no warning is necessary. ] 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			*:“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)
	*'''Note to other admins''' - YahelGuhan, despite being just outside of the 24 hour limit (40 or so minutes doesn't count, as that's gaming the system), has violated 3RR. Both users, in fact, are edit warring, but I am unsure of how to proceed. I would suggest a block for both. Thoughts? ]] 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	**Since Yahel Guhan's last revert I've not made any reversions (though I could have). The edits you see that I made after Yahel Guhan (in the ) are uncontroversial improvements to the article.] (]) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::You are probably just biding your time. Afraid you are going to get blocked, you are trying to temporarily depict yourself as a better editor. I doubt it will last, as your editing shows you do still want that paragraph removed, and you have a history of edit warring to get your way. Second, my intention was not to game the system. I didn't plan to be reverting 40 minutes after the block expired. ] (]) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	~~I'm~~ ~~inclined~~ to ~~leave~~ it ~~be,~~ ~~unless~~ ~~and~~ ~~until~~ we ~~see~~ ~~more~~ ~~disruption.~~ ~~—~~ ~~'''~~]~~'''~~ '']'' 08:24, 7 ~~June~~ ~~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)
	:Seems reasonable --] (]) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree. Both editors are urged to discuss on the talk page instead of reverting. ] (]) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	== ] and other IP-numbers reported by ] (Result: No vio) ==

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	*] violation on {{Article\|Otto Erich Deutsch}}. {{3RRV\|62.178.118.77}} and other IP-numbers: Time reported: 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. --> Then repeatedly inserting incorrect "Jewish" nationality to replace correct "Austrian". Article includes ''Category: Jewish Scolar'' already.

			'''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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide 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 */"
	*5th revert:
			## {{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: No warning. How? 1st: Anonymous (in contrast to almost all other editors of this article), 2nd: changing ip-numbers, 3rd: editing anonymously for the sole purpose of this one edit. Clearly knowing that he/she is doing wrong.
			# {{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:'''
	I ask for permanent article protection against logged-out-edits. (Of all 41 editors of this article, only the troublemaker and three others were not logged in. Judging from the stubbornness, morosity and the long time '''endurance''' of the editor, peace will not be found otherwise. Excuse my righteous anger :-) ] (]) 17:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	:{{AN3\|nv}} Stale, and it needs to be more than three reverts in '''24 hours'''. --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	~~::Sorry, just found the ] for my request.~~ --] (]) 18:33, 7 ~~June~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hour block; suspected sockpuppet) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Florina}}. {{3RRV\|Dvaaeg}}: Time reported: 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*1st revert: User removed content in violation of talkpage consensus.
	*2nd revert:		#
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

	*Diff of ~~3RR~~ ~~warning~~:		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:*The edit summary provided on indicates that this is an established user who prefers to engage in ] edit-warring under a series of disposabe ].

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	The user has not been active after the 3RR notification, therefore it is reasonable to assume s/he has been offline and unable to become aware of the warning. If they persist, please make a new report and make an explicit reference to this one. --] <small><sup>] </sup></small> 23:22, 7 June 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.
	P.S. If my assessment is incorrect, please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to review and/or reopen this issue. --] <small><sup>] </sup></small> 23:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	::'''Result:''' I have blocked the user for 24 hours as a holding action since I believe that this may be a new sock of a sockpuppeteer who I blocked a while ago (namely {{user\|Aegeanhawk}}). I suggest that the best way to establish this would be to take the matter to ]. An admin with checkuser privileges would be better able than I to determine whether this is, as suspected, a sockpuppet. -- ] (]) 23:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::For the record, I defer to that judgement, my original assessment has been based on taking facts at face value. --] <small><sup>] </sup></small> 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::I support the 24-hour block. There are not quite enough edits to show that Dvaaeg is a sock, from behavioral evidence alone (he has only 7 contributions). An initial impression is that he wants to deny any recognition to the ] (which WP no longer requires to be denoted as ]), or to allow Slavic names to be included in the articles on Greek towns like ]. This was also the pattern of edits of Aegeanhawk. I don't see any proof yet that they are the same person, but we should keep an open mind. If checkuser finds this person to be the same editor, then an indefinite block of Dvaaeg would be indicated. ] (]) 19:31, 8 June 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)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	*] violation on {{Article\|Tibet}}. {{3RRV\|Chenyangw}}: Time reported: 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			:]
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			:"""
			:] 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)
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
			::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
			::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
			::"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) ==
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on this article in attempting to revert it to this same diff. 3 different editors in 48 hours have reverted this back to a neutral nonbiased version but this editor has continued to revert back after his 4th edit is more than 24 hours old. This is the only article this user edits and this is the only edit this user makes. Discussion on the talk page has proved unproductive with this editor being unwilling to engage in dialogue about neutral phrasing. ] (]) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ]. ] ] ] ] &spades; 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result:24 for both) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*] violation on {{Gliese 581 c\|Gliese 581 c}}.
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
	{{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			:'''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)
	<!--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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			: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)
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
			: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)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gliese_581_c&action=history
			::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:
	*8th revert:
	*9th revert:
	*10th revert:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* {{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} - both users. There is no valid reason whatsoever to editwar. ] <small>]</small> 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Reverted, protected) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Moldovan language}} . {{3RRV\|Olahus}}: Time reported: 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous ~~version reverted to: ~~<!-- This is MANDATORY. -->~~~~
			'''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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*1st revert:
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
	*Diff of 3RR warning: (in the edit summary)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	User explicitely refused to abide by the 3 reverts rule (see the edit summary of the 4th revision). Note also the personal attacks against me and the false claim of neutrality (he considers "neutral" calling 'stalinist' a language mentioned since the 17th century) in the same l4th revision. Moreover, the version he is reverting to is the same put by ], a of banned ] (edit which I reverted, per ] and] ).] (]) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	:I have protected the article for 36 hours, so you (Xasha) can file a ] or ]. If the inquiry comes back positive, I'll remove the protection (or it might just expire) and further reinstatements of the edit by Olahus could lead to a block. If the inquiry comes back negative, I'll revert back to Olahus's version (as it was the latest version) and see where things go. If an edit war continues in that situation, the article will probably be protected (or one of both of you may be blocked for violating the 3RR). -- ''']''' 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I already filled one yesterday, but due to wrong formatting, I think it was ignored by admins. Now I've repeaired it and I hope someone will be able to handle it.] (]) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Has ] just got a permit to continue the revert war? I fail to understand... ] (]) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hour block ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|The Mickey Mouse Club}}. {{3RRV\|TragedyStriker}}: Time reported: 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

			'''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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			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)
	TragedyStriker is virtually an SPA promoting ]. After attempting unsuccessfully to put include him as a mouseketeer, he has recently come up with some fairly obscure paper sources to justify the inclusion. Consensus among other editors is that the change can only be included after someone '''other''' than TragedyStriker has verified the information. TragedyStriker seems quite unwilling to accept this. ] (]) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (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)
	TragedyStriker is me, and a Wiki editor interested in ]. I am not a SPA, and not an artist at all. The sources are not obscure at all, but Disney Channel Magazines; official sources from the very television station that broadcasted the show. There are also a NUMBER of online sources that have been deleted by 3 editors, one of whom maintains a hate website on the subject. I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information. It seems ludacris that I am being told that an "uninterested" editor has to reinclude this information, when it goes completely against the spirit and policies of Wiki. Assuming good faith is the very backbone of Wiki, and it's very discouraging to run into editors like this. I have provided everything that this select few have asked for and at this point, all of it has been pushed aside. If I am taking the initiative to research the sources to create a more informative and more accurate article, I don't think it's too much to ask for other editors to take a small amount of time to look at the same sources provided if they have any questions. Please advise.

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	] (]) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	:For those watching: the "hate website" that TragedyStriker mentions is real: is an example page. I don't know if I would characterize it as a "hate" website, but I can see why he objects to it. I believe that is published by ] (based on ), but she has not edited the article during this recent dispute.<br>I also have a hard time reading ''I have scanned the articles and sent them to half a dozen other editors regarding Jaydon, and will have others reinclude the information.'' as being anything but a threat to use meatpuppets to bypass blocks. If he has scanned the articles, why doesn't he send them to one of the editors that is insisting on validating the sources?<br>] (]) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* '''Result''' - I have blocked TragedyStrike for 24 hours for edit warring. ]] 22:01, 8 June 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)"

	:I just want to say that I support the result. ] (]) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: user warned) ==
			#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Israel}}. {{3RRV\|Strongbrow}}: Time reported: 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. --> All reverts are variation son this theme. Although each is worded slightly differently, they all revert the article's stating that Jerusalem is the capital into some for of a claim that it is disputed, or that Tel Aviv is the capital.
			Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.

			Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
	<!--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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

			Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	~~Similar~~ ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ on ], ~~with~~ 3 ~~reverts so far ;~~		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*42 edits and last edit indicates they are off to work. Warning left on talk page. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

	::I'd be quite inclined to block (if it wasn't stale) as Strongbow is clearly edit warring. ]] 12:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale/No vio ) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Carefree (chant)}}. Vandalism directly after release of 3RR block. {{3RRV\|The_C_of_E‎}}: Time reported: 15:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

	*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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	::'''Result''' - Not exactly being a recent 3RR violation (he was blocked for it before), this report should perhaps be filed at ] if he's still edit warring over it. ]] 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 72 hour block ) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Thylacoleonidae}} and {{Article\|Marsupial Lion}}. {{3RRV\|Cazique}}: Time reported: 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

	::*'''Result''' - I have blocked the user for 72 hours. ]] 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy}}. {{3RRV\|75.207.XX.XXX}}: Time reported: 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

	*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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

	and also (on a different article)

	*5th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning: Given in edit summary: (the whack-a-mole syndrome with DHCP IP addresses...)

	User 75.207.XX.XXX is editing three articles: ], ], and ] and wants to include a very lengthy addition in each of these articles. User 75.207.XX.XXX refuses to
	]. 75.207.XX.XXX's IP address keeps changing, so there is difficulty reaching the person. The edits have the hallmark of a novice and someone on a mission; but the lengthy addition is copied verbatim from ] and is to the detriment of both ] and ] articles. ] (]) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

	:I can't block because the IP hasn't made 4 reverts in 24 hours but I have prot'd the article for 48 hours. ]] 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Jim Hoffman}}. {{3RRV\|152.131.10.133}} aka {{3RRV\|Bov}}: Time reported: 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

	* Version reverted to (for the first two, anyway)
	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

	# <small>(edit summary: "reverting to "bov" version")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "reverted top paragraphs to last version before AR")</small> (same version, except he left the {{tl\|911tm}} near where I put it)
	# <small>(edit summary: "I think this version is pretty clear")</small> (revert to )
	# <small>(edit summary: "when you take the time to do even a single search you can add your "cite" tag that no one else requires")</small> (Deleted {{tl\|fact}} tag, as have all his other reverts)

	* Diff of warning: (Note: Subject to 1RR per week under discretionary 9/11 sanctions)
	* Only one diff in a set of consecutive edits by the same person is included.

	* I apologize for the block a few minutes ago. He agreed I could block him for template vandalism, not for article vandalism, under the 9/11 sanctions. — ] ] 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} I see four reverts in 24 hours by {{user\|152.131.10.133}}, which clearly breaks a 1RR rule. Arthur Rubin made at most three reverts in 24 hours so far as I can tell. This block also restricts {{user\|Bov}} from editing for the same length of time, since 3RR applies to editors not accounts. Here is to the 9/11 restriction that affects this IP. Thatcher has identified him as ] by checkuser data. ] (]) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

	>>Arthur Rubin made at most three reverts in 24 hours so far as I can tell.
	If there's no possible consequence for his reverts, why mention them? If there is a consequence, does it require 4 reverts? I thought it was 3RR. ] (]) 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
	:Arthur Rubin needs to obey 3RR just like anyone else. If you think our rules are not sufficiently clear, you are welcome to propose a change to the wording over at ]. ] (]) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV\|Life.temp}}: Time reported: 00:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	{{unsigned\|Fovean Author}}

	:I can only see one actual revert in a 24-hour period, although even ''that'' was hard to spot in this completely malformed report. -- ] (]) 01:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
	::Fixed up the report... But I did notice that edits 2 and 4 are the same edit and 2 and 3 are consecutive edits. I only see three edits by Life.temp on June 9 and only two of those are not consecutive. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for fixing up the report - I don't get as much practice at this as scjessey. You'll note that it doesn't take 3rr's to be guilty of edit warring. You just have to be engaged in the practice, which he clearly is ] (]) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::While it is true that it doesn't take three reverts to make someone guilty of 3RR, I point you towards ]. One also needs to have a history of edit warring before an administrator will take action. Making a bold edit, then reverting back to it, then starting a discussion about it is pretty standard fare. The problem is when you repeatedly revert back to the change without discussing. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::{{AN3\|nv}} There are not enough reverts by ] to violate 3RR, or even give an impression of edit warring. ] (]) 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Strategic bombing during World War II}}. {{3RRV\|Molobo}}: Time reported: 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

	;Notes
	*As first revert you could also count this of the by an editor with whom he has much trouble (]), or you could count the of by the same editor.
	*Revert 3 was made by an IP of his. Molobo IPs of that provider.

	;Summary
	Molobo resumed revert warring once his '''''' ended again: (), (), (), (), (), (), (), (), (). ] (]) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	:This is indeed a 3RR violation, if the revert from the IP is included. Please take this to ] first. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	==] reported by <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> (Result: )==
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Barack Obama}}. {{3RRV\|WorkerBee74}}: Time reported: 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Too much spin doctoring from Obama and his campaign volunteers. Not one word from his critics. Consensus on Talk page opposes this exclusion.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Restoring earlier version of Rezko paragraphs that were gutted without consensus. Please see Talk page.")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Personal life */")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 218467926 by ] (]) You were right the first time")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Estoring Last version before massive POV push (in violation of ] and ] by Scjessey, Loonymonkey and Johnpseudo. As K4T suggests, read ].")</small>

	Long time edit warring by probable sockpuppet of user previously blocked multiple times for same behavior on same article: ]. Kossack4Truth makes several identical edits during the same time frame:

	# <small>(edit summary: "Let's try not to forget the two counts of bribery")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Restored bribery charges for the sake of accuracy (with AFP reference)")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 218504857 by ] rv per ] requiring proportionate article space for all non-fringe POVs")</small>

	—<font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	== Example ==

	<pre>
	<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV\|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- 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.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

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

	== See also ==

	* ] or ]
	* – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: