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

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

Revision as of 22:04, 29 June 2008 editIrpen (talk \| contribs)32,604 edits →User:Bobanni reported by User:Miyokan (Result: )← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:43, 10 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators127,936 edits →User:Theonewithreason reported by User:PhilipPirrip (Result: Filer informed): reorder
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}}
	{{Floatinglink\|Administrator instructions\|Administrator instructions}}
	</noinclude>
	]
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 75		\|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 the ] 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: 24h (Re); 36h (De)) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Roma people}}. {{3RRV\|Rezistenta}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Time reported: 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	*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. -->

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	I this user yesterday for 3rr, but instead the admin ] blocked me only with 3 alleged reverts (one of them as explained in my ], was by Rezistenta, to add the sources that I already put in the ]). I want also to bring to your attention that the Rezistenta has ] of vandalism and verbal violence (just to remind the last revert where he named me mad), that PeterSymonds him in an unjustified manner and that the initial move from ] to ], as controversial as it may be, was done by another admin, ], only with a ], without discussing it first. ] 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:{{user\|Rezistenta}} and {{user\|Desiphral}} have both been blocked, for twenty-four and thirty-six hours, respectively, for edit-warring on this article. -- ''']''' 12:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
	::I don't contest the nominator's right to list this here, because it was a legitimate block, reviewed externally by at least two well-respected editors and one admin and declared thus. However, I want to make one thing clear before it goes any further. I am ''not'' supporting one side over the other. I know nothing of this dispute; I know nothing of the article; I've never edited any related articles. It is a coincidence that I warned you before, but I came here twice because I happened to be around, and not because I have a vested bias for, or interest in, either view. ] ] 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 ~~hours~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	*] violation on {{Article\|RKO Pictures}}. {{3RRV\|DCGeist}}
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Time reported: 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: (This is itself a revert, as the edit summary admits)
			# (31 December 2024)
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			# (6 January 2024)
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
			# (7 January 2025)
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
			# (8 January 2025)
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	<!-- 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:
	*6th revert:
	*7th revert:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	It is the third through sixth reverts which consistute the violation; but I include the others which demonstrate a pattern. These are exact reversions of two different editors, including at least some reversions of different variants inserted as an effort at compromise; if it were not continuing, I would not have brought it here. ] <small>]</small> 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
	While DCGeist is an experienced editor, and should know about 3RR, he was reminded . ] <small>]</small> 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	: {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} Three reverts in 24 hours is not a 'strict' violation of 3RR, but pattern of editing clearly shows disregard for the rule. Editor has been blocked four times in the past for 3RR violations, so blocked for 48 hours. ]] 16:09, 26 June 2008 (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.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Reversions 3, 4, 5, and 6 are 4 in fourteen hours; but another recasting of the sentence is in place, and we'll see what happens when the block ends. ] <small>]</small> 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	Incidentally, I too was involved in the edit war on ], and am willing to take whatever block is prudent. I don't know if I necessarily violated 3RR, but if two people were engaging in equal edit warring, it would be wrong for only one to be blocked. --] (]) 02:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no violation) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	*] violation on {{Article\|Ronald McDonald}}. {{3RRV\|Plyjacks}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Time reported: 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			# {{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:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
	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:
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:
	*6th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Comment-
	There is a content dispute over who created the character. I thought we had reach a consensus to leave both versions in and mention that the two stories and include a note in the infobox that the creators were disputed. Twice with in the previous 24 hours Plyjacks has blanked the information on Willard Scott. This also includes previous removals and editorial changes to weigh the article to the side he supports, which involves two other individuals purported to have created the clown - Terry Teene and George Vorhees. --] (<small> ]</small>) 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:{{AN3\|nv}} Consecutive edits count as one for the purposes of the three-revert-rule. ] (]) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Middlesex}}. {{3RRV\|86.146.108.159}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Time reported: 21:54, 26 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))
			*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
			:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
			*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
			*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
			*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
			*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
			*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
			*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
			*:
			*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
			*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{AN3\|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Previous version reverted to:

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	*Blocked for 24 hours last night by ]. ] (]) 08:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	*] violation on {{Article\|Gender of God}}. {{3RRV\|Alastair Haines}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Time reported: 09:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*In most cases, the user is not reverting to the same specific version, due to the article being developed throughout the incident. In the 3rd, 4th and 5th reverts, he is reverting the removal of some sections (discussed - note that the editor did not contribute). In the 1st and 2nd, he is restoring to earlier versions of the article, as discussed . User was recently blocked for 24h for violating 3RR over the same article (). He is editing alone against the consensus of myself, ] and ].
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268202556\|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268202677\|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268203165\|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204621\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204745\|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268204943\|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268205104\|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
			## {{diff2\|1268208200\|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*<s>1st revert: </s>
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
	*2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning: No warning given - user is assumed to know the rules, since he was recently blocked for violating 3RR on the same page.
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*'''Comment''' - Sorry, I made a mistake on the dates. Ignore the first revert. ] (]) 09:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	:::Warning! User Ilkali is gaming the system.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	:::The links and times Ilkali has given do not match. They also include revisions that were part of text building sequences that included text that was accepted by both Alynna and Ilkali himself. They do not constitute a 3RR violation as claimed. In fact, quite the opposite, they evidence User:Alastair Haines progressing the article on the basis of sources, despite sections of this being repeatedly removed by two editors, without them citing sources or attempting consensus.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:::Ilkali's last edit summary says, "removed irrelevant text again - see talk page. you're already arguably in violation of 3RR, Alastair. don't push yourself completely over the edge". This is a claim that ], ] and ] are "irrelevant" to an article on cross-cultural views of the gender of gods. Together with a threat. There is no consensus that the views of these scholars are irrelevant, and I find it hard to believe that such a consensus would ever eventuate. These are "canonical" scholars.

	:::I notified Ilkali that I was going to report his violations, but that I would be absent for a while. He appears to have taken the "forewarned is forearmed" approach, and is countering by accusing me. I strongly suggest the edit history and talk page of this article be investigated closely.
	:::It will be observed that none of the editors mentioned above have supplied a single source to the article or talk page.
	:::I further note that I have already allowed one administrator error in this matter to pass. I recommend at least two administrators confer in assessing this case.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:::Ilkali's example above is not a 3RR violation from me because it involves a series of sourced edits building the article.
			#
	:::On the other hand, here are two examples of Ilkali breaking 3RR, and me letting it pass:
	::::;User Ilkali removing a talk page post I made in reply to another long standing editor of the page:
	::::*
	::::*
	::::*
	::::*
	::::;User Ilkali repeatedly removing sourced text in the article namespace:
	::::* (current revision)
	::::*
	::::* <- 3 in 24 hours
	::::* 4th slightly before

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	:::Over the course of about a month, Ilkali has consistently used reversion edits on the article, and never once provided any sourced text. Additionally, he has frequently done this with no talk page comment before or after. When he has used talk to support his reversions, his arguments have been ''ad hominem'', personal attacks, appeals to majority or his own authority, not to sources, nor to consensus.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:::My WQA failed. My appeal for mediation has not been answered. Please do something. I do not seek Ilkali's banning.
	:::This is not just a matter of progress being disrupted on one article. I am concerned about time lost having to defend attacks on my character as an editor, while I have several higher priority projects within the Wiki community, including ] and ]. ] (]) 11:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	::::''"I notified him that I was going to report his own violations, but that I would be absent for a while. He took the "Forewarned is forearmed" approach and is counter-accusing me"''. That's a somewhat uncivil accusation. I am reporting you because the results of the first report didn't seem to have an effect on you - your behaviour hasn't changed in the slightest. Both of your claims that I've violated the 3RR rule are baseless: In the original instance, you count two edits that aren't actually reversions (perhaps this is why you give links to versions rather than to diffs?) and in the second case, I only reverted three times. Why would I need special tactics to draw attention from these vacuous accusations?
	::::''"It will be observed that none of the editors mentioned above have supplied a single source to the article or talk page"''. This isn't the place to discuss these things. Bring it up at mediation.
	::::''"My WQA failed"''. Because those involved agreed you were wrong.
	::::''"My appeal for mediation has not been answered"''. Because we are all waiting for you to approve Rushyo as mediator. ] (]) 11:53, 27 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.
	:::::No one has informed me of Rushyo's arrival. I will have a look directly. ] (]) 12:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	::::This conversation would flow better if you didn't continually edit a comment I've already replied to, Alastair. Your latest edit introduces the claim that "The links and times Ilkali has given do not match". The times I cite are the times of the last edit in each diff, as can be seen by clicking the link and looking at the "Revision as of ..." text for the 'after' version. You also claim that "They also include revisions that were part of text building sequences that included text that was accepted by both Alynna and Ilkali himself". Again, this is untrue. I hand-selected only those edits with which you reverted the removal of text, or restored the article to an earlier version. ] (]) 12:28, 27 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)
	:That'd be my point, then, you admit you '''"hand-selected"''' the edits you're claiming are a 3RR.
	:In context, the edit history merely reflects a long standing pattern. Constructive edits and sources from me. Endless reversions from you. I rest my case. ] (]) 12:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	::{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} Second 3RR this month on the same article. ] (]) 13:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	Time reported: 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	*Previous version reverted to (this is the correct version): <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] has decided that the original German Panzer Army Africa battle reports about the ] and the historical truth are nothing compared to his source: WWII fascist Radio Rome and therefore is continuing (for days now) to vandalize ] the article ] with fascist propaganda about the heroic exploits of Italian troops. Discussion attempts have been tried and ignored by him. The enitre talk page of the article in question ] is only about trying to reason with him: 2 Military history Wikiproject coordinators, me and a historian from New Zealand have tried in vain to explain to him, that nothing supports his version of events. He simply ignores it and has reverted himself today 4 times and together with his various socks he has reverted the correct version 12 times in the last 60 hours.) ] and his various socks are incarnations of already banned ], Radio Rome broadcasting to English personnel during WWII is not an acceptable source, furthermore he refuses to discuss and prefers to insult other editors and as he and his socks behave in the same way in all WWII articles with Italian participation my patience is finished. --] (]) 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268291574\|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
	** {{AN3\|ab}} ]] 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	UNINDENT
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	I realise this is slightly unorthodox but it seems clear that this user is using a sock puppet to edit disruptively at ]. Can I ask that an admin be ], look at the evidence on the talk page and intervene to stop this disruption of the article. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==

			:'''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)
	*] violation on {{Article\|Raegan_Butcher}}. {{3RRV\|john celona}}

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	*Previous version reverted to (this is the correct version): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Raegan_Butcher&diff=222063434&oldid=221936225 <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	*1st revert:
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	also see:




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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Celona, a perennial edit-warrer, is at it again. --] (]) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|p}} This editor has not (quite) violated 3RR, but there appears to be a large-scale edit war going on. ]] 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
	::: No violation. One of 4 reverts was on June 24, another on June 27! Unless the Laws Of Nature have changed, that is more than 24 hours. Jkp212 has a long, long history of edit warring, having just been blocked ] upon my complaint for violating the 3RR Rule. In any event, the article has been protected to the status quo version (the one that has been on the article since another user created it and the one Jpk wants to change) until July 4. ] (]) 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
			# {{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\|Christopher Dodd presidential campaign, 2008}}. {{3RRV\|Kendrick7}}


	Time reported: 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	*Previous version reverted to:

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

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Diff of 3RR warning:
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
	* Comment: User Kendrick personally attacked ] about this same article (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:WilyD&diff=prev&oldid=219531751)
	:{{AN3\|noex}} ]] 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
	::Strictly speaking, yes it has to be in 24 hours. But user kendrick will just revert the article back tomorrow after more than 24 hours anyway, to avoid 3RR violation on ground of technicality. He's done this before. --] (]) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::What you've cited is four reverts in '''''twelve days''''' - though the last two are today, it's still miles from violating 3RR. When four reverts are made in 48 hours, alarm bells should start ringing, and when four reverts are made in 36 hours, feel free to report again. Right now, you're on the same peg as him - two reverts in 24 hours. ]] 17:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
	::::Again, user kendrick is someone who has personally attacked an admin (User:WilyD). So his actions should not be tolerated. --] (]) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	== ] reported by ] ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	{{resolved\|Page protected for seven days}}


			'''Previous version reverted to:'''


			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''

			# {{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:'''




			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Most of the reverts are to versions of the article that this editor attempted to insert months ago (e.g. see ). The editor is declining to seek consensus at talk page.

	] (]) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	::Ferrylodge likes to bully me. When will it end?--] (]) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	~~:::When~~ ~~you seek consensus, and stop demanding that~~ the ~~article~~ ~~reflect~~ ~~your~~ ~~POV.~~] (]) 18:57, 27 ~~June~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Page protected. Please pursue ]. ] <small>]</small> 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Was there a 3RR violation? If there wasn't, it would help me (and perhaps others) to understand why there wasn't. Thanks.] (]) 21:45, 27 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)
	== ] ==
			::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{u\|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	{{resolved\|Page semi-protected}}
	Massive editwar linked to other language versions of Misplaced Pages as well.
	Can't begin to list the diffs, the page history speaks for itself.
	Neither side bothers to discuss whether the reference they're fighing over is relevant. Dutch group of stalkers v Dutch anon, I'm sorry to say. ] (]) 19:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*] violation on ]. {{3RRV\|Ronpillao}}
			# "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)"

	Time reported: 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			#: "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:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"
	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> <br />
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
	Additional information. Seems clear that this editor is a sockpuppet of edit ], which is itself a sockpuppet of banned editor ]. The editor ] is already blocked. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|ab}} Indef as a sock, by ]. See also ]. ] (]) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

			Despite trying to talk to them, they are just ignoring my and CountHackers actual points, and we even had more discussion but they just made their fifth revert.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked) ==

			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 ].
	*] violation on {{Article\|Toilets in Japan}}. {{3RRV\|Planhand}}

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	Time reported: 14:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time
	than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
	<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions.
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Theonewithreason}}
	See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

	*1st ~~revert~~:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*2nd revert:
	*3rd revert:
	*4th revert:
	*5th revert:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:

			#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:{{AN3\|ab}} 31 hours by ]. ] (]) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Georgian-Abkhazian conflict<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. {{3RRV\|Kober<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}}

	Time reported: 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

			'''Diff 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. -->

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- 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> <br />
	*1st revert: Previous version:
	*2nd revert: Previous version:
	*3rd revert: Previous version:
	*4th revert: Previous version:
	*5th revert: Previous version:

	*Kober is an ~~experience~~ user, , he has also ~~been~~ in ~~the~~ ~~past~~ by ~~admin~~ ] to ~~stay~~ ~~below~~ ~~3rr.~~		I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{u\|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	:] has a long history of attempts at calumniating me and provocative actions in order to spur an edit war and then report me here. A highly illustrative example can be seen when he tried to convince the admin Moreschi to block me even though I was reverting a vandal and Moreschi explained that my reverts were legitimate.
			:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
	:In this case, I was reverting an anonymous ip/a recently created account who kept removing a well-documented info on Russia's role in the Abkhazian conflict, references to which are provided throughout the article. Pocopoco, true to his tradition, decided to maintain his antagonizing stance towards me, without caring to discuss his changes in the talk page (even though I ). The problem had previously been discussed ad nauseum and the article had been relatively stable for several months.--]<sup>]</sup> 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} Second block for edit warring. ] (]) 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Lee Jung-jin (footballer)}}
	<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sillypickle123}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on {{Article\|Tiny Rascal Gang}}. {{3RRV\|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Time reported: 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268583865\|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268451301\|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268450870\|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268449472\|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268448980\|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268447335\|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
			# {{diff2\|1268463321\|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268447335\|diff=1268451519\|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
	and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.
	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.
			* {{AN3\|b\| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	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:

	'''Notes'''
	I have been reverting ] attempts to remove the Speedy Delete and Unrefrenced tag on a Afd article which was already deleted twice (inculding today). --] (]) 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
	'''Other Notes'''
	I proboaly haven't done this right. This is my first time reporting a user here so please assume ]
	:'''Comment:''' Apparently the article has been deleted; therefore no further action is required. (non-admin opinion) ] (]) 23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

	:{{AN3\|p}} The article in question has been deleted and protected against recreation until 2 July by {{admin\|KnowledgeOfSelf}}, so further action is unnecessary. ] (]) 23:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Roman Empire}}. {{3RRV\|81.215.75.143}}
	Hy, I'm hereby reporting the actions of this user who basicly is trying to push his POV and reverted the edits of the article in question at least three times (perhaps 4? I'm not sure) today. This user has already been duly warned by ] at his personal talkpage and invited to resolve the issue at the articles talkpage. I'm sorry if this report is a bit crude (and I extend my apologies if I missed something; this is my second time I report something like this and I'm not interrested in becoming a Pro in these matters - reporting ppl).
	Time reported: 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

	(''The following was added by Coppertwig:'')
	*Previous version reverted to: <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

	Each revert removes "'''476 /'''" from "year_end =". Some reverts also revert other material. The year_end issue has been discussed extensively on the talk page.

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

	*Diff of 3RR warning: (A version link rather than a diff because it's the first post to this user's talk page. There are only 9 edits under this IP account.) ] (]) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

	{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} --''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Communist Party of India (Marxist)}}. {{3RRV\|Sindhian}}

	Time reported: 12:39, 29 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:

	*Please see the editing history at . Thanks. ] (]) 12:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


	*Diff of 3RR warning:


	: These are not reverts but as you can see there is slight variation in each edit to make it acceptable. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::*It is a more complex than that. Sindhian keeps trying to add his own "Contraversies" section. S/he is the only editor who thinks this is a good idea. Other editors disagree and have reverted his attempts to push his/her POV into the article. The edit history of the article speaks for itself. Thanks. ] (]) 13:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::I have already apologised for my misunderstanding and in any case I did not accuse but expressed my suspicion.
	*'''Comment''' In reverting other edits - the reasoning given was that other editors are "leaders of a disrutive gang." . Thanks. ] (]) 13:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

	: I stand by this charge that some editors were working as a gang because a number of users were deleting section in tandom to avoid 3RR rule. They were also not expressing their reasons for delete. As well as many previous editors who tried to add references negative to CPI(M) were banned.] (]) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
	:: ] was banned for ], not for introducing criticisms agaist CPI(M). --] (]) 13:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Holodomor}}. {{3RRV\|Bobanni}}

	Time reported: 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

	*Previous version reverted to:

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

	User has been editing since September 2007 with over 2000 edits, well aware of the rule.--] (]) 13:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
	:To be fair, note that {{user\|Miyokan}} ] and broken it: , . ] (]) 14:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

	::Comment. Bobanni, has been a hassle in a wide range of articles where he was persistently silently reverting without even edit summaries but making sure his reverts are slow enough to technically remain under 3RR. Most of his article edits in general are reverts. Bobanni's edits were undone by a multitude of users but he persisted with his reverts trying to achieve his changes through sterile revert warring. As for a link provide by Colchicum, I see a proposal to place Miyokan on an editing restriction but the thread above indicates no community concensus to do so. Unlike Bobanni, Miyokan writes much content and reduced the reverts significantly. Punishing the user for 2 reverts of an SPA who made 5 (and was reverted by a multitude of others) just makes no sense. --] 19:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
	::: ] is just involved in suppressing all ukrainian references in many article, as an expression of his own extremist point of view, without any reference ...(See Ilia Repin articles, and others) This is his main contribution to Misplaced Pages, and I'm not sur he is doing a good job with all these suppressing ... {{unsigned\|90.2.29.219}}
	::::Please log in and sign with your real username. --] 22:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for 12 hours) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|Star Trek fan productions}}. {{3RRV\|CubOfJudahsLion}}

	Time reported: 20:08, 29 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:

	*Diff of 3RR warning:
	{{AN3\|b\|12 hours}} ] (]) 20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

	= Example =
	<pre>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	*] violation on {{Article\|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. {{3RRV\|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}}

	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 21:43, 10 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

I am going to advise that we delay any action here until Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shecose is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. Shecose (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

Categories: