Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:19, 7 September 2008 editDunkerguy89 (talk | contribs)61 edits →User:| reported by dunkerguy89:| (Result: )← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,730 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{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}}
]
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 79 |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. -->
</noinclude>
__TOC__


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


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked at 09:12 by ]) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*] violation on {{Article|Richard Steel}}.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
{{3RRV|24.180.21.121}}
# {{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:'''
Time reported: 2:48 AM


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


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- The link above must be to a version, not a diff, and must be from BEFORE all the
reverting took place. This helps us establish that the first edit, in particular, is a
revert to a previous version.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. -->


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
*1st revert:
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Richard_Steel&diff=233493503&oldid=233493116


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
*Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* Page: {{article|Disney's Wide World of Sports Complex}}
* User: {{userlinks|Simon Bar Sinister}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


* Previous version reverted to: '''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)


<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
: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)
* Diff of 3RR warning:
::{{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) ==
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
User is tendentiously editing an article despite clear consensus on how the article (a child article to the main ] article) should be laid out. Further, no citation has been provided in any of the edits to back up his claims. User appears to have already been warned and was blocked while this was being prepared, so this may be a moot point.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
] (]) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
* Blocked by another admin for 24 hours. Incidentally, though, you (the reporter) are actually at 4RR right now. I'm not going to do anything at this point, but you could well have ''both'' ended up blocked. Take it to ] next time, ''before'' you hit your 4th revert. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
::See also ] about the same article. ] (]) 13:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result:No violation) 06:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC))) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Page: {{article|abkhazia}}
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
* User: {{userlinks|Kober}}
# {{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:'''
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


*'''Warning'''
There is no requirement to warn this user who is highly experienced..anyway he reverted his own user page twice to erase the 3rr warnings (he erased the warning not once but twice: contempt at 3rr?}..even after that he reverted a (3+2+1) sixth time(see attention diverting tactic explained below)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
the user has used REVERT OPTION atleast four times within 24 HOUR time frame in the same article..please see proof of each of his 4 reverts within 24 hours
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
===Revert 1===
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
revert1:please compare similarities between and ..both his versions differ from intermediate edits which are better referenced, neutral, balanced and rearranged into appropriate sections(most of content retained but rearranged logically)..see
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
# 04:56, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) (83,882 bytes) ('''rv''' mass destruction of the intro. Guy, learn to use talk page!) (undo)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# (cur) (last) 04:22, 4 September 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (79,404 bytes) (ref added.. rearrange) (undo)
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
===Revert 2===
revert2 please note the bytes as an easy guide PROOF:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
# 08:46, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) ('''75,810 bytes''') (such gross changes should be discussed on talk. Deal with it!) (undo)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
# 08:45, 4 September 2008 117.193.37.23--(cityvalyu dynamic server number without registering) (Talk) (79,402 bytes) (restored clean up) (undo)
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)
# 06:04, 4 September 2008 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) ('''75,810 bytes''')


: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)
===Revert 3===
please note the bytes as easy guide:revert3 PROOF :


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
# 08:59, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) ('''75,824 bytes''') (please don't destroy the article) (undo)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
# 08:55, 4 September 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (79,416 bytes) (Undid revision 236198029 by Kober (talk) you too can use talk to develop consensus on MASSIVELY reverting twice..see edit summaries) (undo)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
# 08:50, 4 September 2008 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) ('''75,824 bytes''') (semi) (undo)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
===Warning===


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Warning deleted by ] after 3rd revert with disdain repeatedly: proof:
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* Diff of 3RR warning:
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
* DIFF OF 3RR WARNING DELETION:
## {{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:'''
===Revert 4===
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
* 4th revert even after warning ; obvious motive: to feign good behaviour..
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
please note the bytes as easy guide:revert4 PROOF :
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
# 09:57, 4 September 2008 Kober (Talk | contribs) ('''75,856''' bytes)
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
# 09:49, 4 September 2008 Raphaelhui (Talk | contribs) (75,978 bytes)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
# 09:33, 4 September 2008 Treybien (Talk | contribs) m ('''75,856''' bytes)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


*'''Comment'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
the user does not read edit summaries before reverting to his favourable version..blatantly violating 3rr in this article alone..although i tried to revert his reverts, i didnt want to violate 3rr and hence stopped short of reverting thrice ..but once i realised that he is rampant reverter (see also his reverts in ] on the same date of sept 4, 2008) i am forwarding him here for he deserves a big ban..may be he hates the edits because of user hatred..since all my edits were made with citations and step by step so that anyone can understand that article was cleaned up to a better wp:point and rectified wp:unbalanced wp:undue clauses..irrespective of the edit conflicts , he has violated and deserves punishment since he is an EXPERIENCED user..
#
i hope admin will take appropriate action] (]) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:Huh! It seems to me Cityvalyu has attributed all edits done today to me. This is ridiculous. I did not violate 3RR. I twice reverted an apparent destruction of the article, one by an IP , and the other by Cityvalyu (sockpuppetry?). Even after that, I reverted myself. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Since Kober has reverted himself, I do not see violations here. ] (]) 10:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::User didnt revert the first 3 edits..he intentionally made and reverted the fourth edit to score brownie points to divert attention from previous 3 reverts..see the time when he deleted the warning messages and compare with the diversionary fourth reversion..] (]) 11:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Also, your report is very hard to follow, Cityvalyu. Please use the link "Click here to add a new report" at the top and bottom of this page which provides a convenient template. ] (]) 10:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::I HAVE rearranged..hope you are not saying this to act blind and be lenient with him..(i am not blaming you of racist slant as of now as i am assuming good faith)] (]) 11:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm still trying to wade through the report to determine exactly what's gone on, but in the meantime, Cityvalyu, (i) users can remove warnings from their talk page if they wish, as it's a prima facie indication that they've read them, (ii) to then repost the warning constitutes disruption, (iii) ], (iv) you're hardly an innocent party in the on-going edit war, and (v) "I am not blaming you of racist slant as of now as I am assuming good faith" doesn't bode very well should the result of this report go against your views. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 12:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::what all this hoopla!!! this guy has used revert option more than 4 times in this particular article alone within 24 hours(even without considering other reverts done in tha same time frame)..yet you guys want to find fault with me!!! i need to think a lot about wikipedia's application of moral standards...] (]) 12:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's not particularly difficult to find fault with you, since you're clearing edit warring against consensus, and continue to do so. I don't think that there's been a breach of ] by {{user|Kober}}, but am pretty certain that your edits constitute a breach, so consider yourself warned accordingly. Take it to the talk page - any more edit warring and blocks will almost certainly be on the cards. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 12:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::kober is georgian..everyone knows about double standards of western nationals..so, compare previous bans and this exemption..well, the handling of iraq invasion and handling of kosovo with respect to russia speaks a lot for these 'stooges"' dubious motives...that explains why the four reverts this guy made within 24 hours is not even condemned..no wonder the reporting party gets harassed..And as expected of "stooges", kober carries on...i suggest you guys award an appreciation to kober for reverting more than 4 times within 24 hours since he is georgian vandalising abkhazian pages..] (]) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::you say "''I don't think that there's been a breach of ] by {{user|Kober}}, ''"shall i assume that such behaviour will be tolerated if i experiment with similar 4 reverting (with 3 massive reverts) within 24 hours..are you setting a precedent here?? you have not stated the reasons too (may i point to you that your integrity is questionable!!)..you have not found fault with the indisputable proof on display too..please judge your own conscience before coming here to exempt blatant violators for ?? motives...] (]) 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


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.
* Page: {{article|Palestinian National Authority}}
* User: {{userlinks|Fipplet}}


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


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


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


:]
:"""
:] 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)
* 1st revert:
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
* 2nd revert:
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
* 3rd revert:
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
* 4th revert:
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
* 5th revert:
::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.
* 6th revert:
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
* 7th revert: </s>
::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) ==
(Original report by RolandR 11:33 4 September 2008)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
* Diff of 3RR warning: <s> , </s> (I forgot to use "subst" -- CT)
# {{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:'''
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
This is about the capital city as displayed in the infobox. Fipplet's reverts are replacing "'''Jerusalem (claimed), Ramallah (de facto)'''" with just "'''Ramallah'''" and a briefer footnote. There is ongoing discussion on the talk page and Fipplet has some good points; however, please work things out via discussion, compromise and use of ] and reliable sources, not with repeated reverting of the article. This article is under ]. Fipplet is the sole editor reverting to that version, opposing four established editors reverting in the other direction. I've added information to this report, replacing the list of "reverts" with essentially the same list in a different format. I left off the first revert in order to make the "previous version reverted to" more obviously similar to the reverts. I'm an involved editor on this page. ] (]) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:And I have just added today's '''seventh''' (or eighth, depending on how you count) revert. Someone please take actoion against this disruptive editor. ] (]) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
::I am an uninvolved editor. I warned Fipplet about the ArbCom sanctions (logging my notification) and he was subsequently warned about the reverts (on user page and Talk). Though he's a newbie, I would recommend a block at this juncture. ] | ] 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} Although Fipplet's ideas about the status of Jerusalem should be carefully listened to on the article Talk page, he is clearly edit-warring to force his view into the article. He has reverted the same phrases back into the article over and over again. ] (]) 15:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


:'''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)
* Page: {{Article|Sarah Palin}}
* User: {{Userlinks|Pulsifer}}


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
* Previous version reverted to: (This is the article after the first instance of Pulsifer adding this info, which I am not counting as a revert.
: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) ==
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
* Diff of 3RR warning:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
Technically he added the info once, and then reverted 3 times, so there is no 4th revert yet, but at least one of those reverts happened after he was warned. And content similar to that he originally added had previously been removed by various editors. ] (]) 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|nv}} As you said yourself, there is no 4th revert. ] (]) 16:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::Please reconsider per ] and ]. ] (]) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Noted. The purpose of a 3RR block is to prevent an edit war from continuing. Since the page is protected, it is not possible for the edit war to continue. Blocking Pulsifer would serve no useful purpose. ] (]) 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::After the protection is lifted, if Pulsifer inserts the material on the Alaskan Independence Party yet again, without finding support to do so on Talk, I suggest that Mike R should file a new 3RR report at that time and mention this one as evidence. ] (]) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Page: {{article|Homophobia}}
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
* User: {{userlinks|115.130.2.169}}
# {{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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


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


<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


<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)
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
Technically I could do this block, but I'm not comfortable blocking him since I've been reverting him, so I'm submitting it here instead. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 16:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
:{{AN3|ab}} by ]. ] ] ] ] &spades; 23:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Page: {{article|Homophobia}}
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
* User: {{userlinks|115.130.2.169}}
# {{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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


* Previous version reverted to:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert
* 6th revert
* 7th revert
* 8th revert
* 9th revert


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:
*
*


This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This is a single-issue editor apparently using 2 IPs. He shows no signs of backing down. ] (]) 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<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)


::He's gone far beyond 9 reverts at this point. Despite repeated warnings. I'm going to block him even though I edit that page, and will post on ] for review. ] (]) 17:11, 4 September 2008 (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)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
::: Note that he/she seems to have taken on a user ID - {{user|WesternPacific}} - and has continued the revert-war. ] (]) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::] has already been blocked 48 hours by FisherQueen, for evasion of the previous block on 115.130. I think that semi-protection of this article should be considered, due to the high volume of inflammatory POV-pushing by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the Talk page. (This is not exactly a normal BLP issue, but it does involve blanket criticism of entire groups in society based on poor sources). ] (]) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Page: {{article|Barack Obama}}
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
* User: {{userlinks|Scjessey}}
# "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)"


* Previous version reverted to:


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
#: "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:'''
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: # "Lady Saso: New Section"
* 3rd revert: # "Lady Saso: Reply"
* 4th revert:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Article is under ], Scjessey has been cited before for edit warring on this topic. ] (]) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.


Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
:<s>{{AN3|b|31 hours}} (had been previously blocked in April) -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)</s>


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).
::Looks like a bad block and a bad faith wikigaming report. Will contact blocking admin directly. ] (]) 23:48, 4 September 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.
:::I agree, looking at evidence, there is no evidence of edit warring. This is a bad block request. ] (]) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
:::: This article is under probation for a reason: editors like Wikidemon and Scjessey edit war and revert any other editor who makes an unauthorized contribution to it. Scjessey has been warned about this before. No one owns articles around here, and they should stop acting like they do. ] (]) 00:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
::::: Hey, this isn't a forum. I'm just providing a pointer that we can discuss this bad block elsewhere. ] (]) 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours) ==
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

* Page: {{article|Balkans}}
* User: {{userlinks|74.210.87.84}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

This user is persistently making edits against the consensus established on the talk page and has broken the three-revert rule despite prior warnings. ] (]) 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} --]] 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (]) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC) (Result: 24 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Bob Jones University}}
* User: {{userlinks|71.15.88.28}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
This may look like a good faith edit to someone unfamiliar with the subject. But it's vandalism.
] (]) 21:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] 03:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)(Result:24 hours ) ==

* Page: {{article|Hulk (comics)}}
* User: {{userlinks|189.87.58.52}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: Multiple, see talk.

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
this was refused as not being tendentious editing, vandalism, or anything else. ] (]) 03:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} - ] (]) 04:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Dojang}}.
*] violation on {{Article|Korean swordsmanship}}.
*] violation on {{Article|Gaya confederacy}}.
*] violation on {{Article|Tribute}}.

{{3RRV|Kuebie}}

Time reported: 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:

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

*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:

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

*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
*Diff of 3RR warning:

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

*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*Diff of 3RR warning:
He was warned of 3RR violation in August. But he kept reverting edits without replying to anyone no matter how many times we try to talk to him. --] (]) 07:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 09:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Disclaimer''', <u>This is a malpresented 3RR report by {{User|Michael Friedrich}}.</u> I've watched the edit warring between {{User|Bentecbye}} and {{User|Kuebie}}, and it is true that Kuebie violated 3RR at ]. However, Michael Friedrich deliberately included the above several cases as if Kubie violated 3RR over all articles. That is not so true. Although edit warring over multiple articles is disruptive, Michael Friedrich should have not reported the case like this manner. <u>{{User|Bentecbye}} is as much guilty as Kuebie, because he reverted 3 times over all mentioned articles.</u> Bentecbye has only kept edit warring with other editors, I'm wonder how the report omits the fact. Anyway, Kuebie violated 3RR on ], so he gets what he has to get. --] (]) 13:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Commerzbank}}
* User: {{userlinks|86.143.159.186}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
] (]) 08:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|b|12 hours}} ] (]) 09:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|arthashastra}}
* User: {{userlinks|CalendarWatcher}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
*{{AN3|malformed}} ] <sup>]</sup> 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::'''Comment''': Actually, CalendarWatcher didn't violated 3RR, but 98.222.196.27 did. FisherQueen has 98.222.196.27 for 24 hours for editwarring on this page. 98.222.196.27 was repeatedly inserting an "in modern literature" trivia section, ignoring requests to discuss it on the talk page first. (involved editor) ] (]) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Stewie Griffin}}
* User: {{userlinks|134.241.28.252}}

User keeps adding contentious material and ignoring the discussion on the Talk Page.

] (]) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Both {{AN3|b}} ] <sup>]</sup> 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Gaya confederacy}}
* User: {{userlinks|Bentecbye}}

* Previous version reverted to: <s> </s>

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

*Please look at the above 3RR report on {{User|Kuebie}} filed by {{User|Michael Friedrich}} : ]. The user in question has been edit-warring with Kuebie over multiple articles, who also violated 3RR and was blocked today morning. Well, regardless of the two warning to prevent his 3RR and the opponent's block, Bentecbye violates 3RR at this time. So a block is in order, I believe. The first edit is also revert because the dispute is all the same one occurred on August 10th. --] (]) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

**I don't violat 3rr rule.Is this revert?--] (]) 20:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
***You made 5 edits in total on the article, and I included all reverts by you. Please read ], because you edit warring up to 3 reverts on ], ] are also not excusable.--] (]) 20:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
***edit is revert?''4th revert: ''Your report is mistake.--] (]) 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
*Besides, you first edit is '''revert''' because it is the same dispute over the content on 2008-08-10 by another editor, {{User|HISTORICAL POLICE 1009}} ''Findings of typical Japanese tumulus and jades in this area are proving the theory today. '' - Same content and same revert.--] (]) 20:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
*my 1st edit.I added the source.What is a problem? is this 3RR? I obey judgment of Administrators.--] (]) 21:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': The five reverts listed are all reverts, in my opinion. Each revert removes the words "'''is widely rejected even in Japan'''" and inserts a lot of other words. I had noticed earlier today that Bentecbye had violated 3RR, but I figured that Bentecbye had stopped reverting on receiving the warning. Apparently not: Bentecbye has done a fifth revert, after the warning. Bentecbye, I don't understand why you're saying you didn't violate 3RR. Look at the five diffs listed above. Discussing on the talk page is good, but you are still not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. You give diffs for some other edits. They make no difference. Even if you also did other edits, you're not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. If you remove words that someone else had put in, that's a revert, even if you change some other things too. I've changed the "previous version reverted to" in this report. (non-admin opinion) ] (]) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Jeremy Volk}}
* User: <s>{{userlinks|Energiee}} </s> {{userlinks|Energiie}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236575038&oldid=236572485

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236572794&oldid=236572517
* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236573289&oldid=236573086
* 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236573621&oldid=236573571
* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jeremy_Volk&diff=236573683&oldid=236573637

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Energiie&diff=236576159&oldid=236574170

This user reverted three times further past what is on this report. The speedy delete tag is currently on, rolled back by me. ] (]) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:] has removed the page per the speedy delete tag for reason A7, however, this doesn't change the fact that the user has committed a policy violation. ] (]) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' Blocks are preventive, ]. Since the page no longer exists, there is no need to do anything to prevent editwarring on it. (non-admin opinion) ] (]) 02:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I am aware of this, I simply reported this because this is evidence of a user who aggressively edit wars on their pages to the point of seven reverts, and the fact that it was a speedy delete template being removed makes it all the worse. I added the report under ] as edit warring is grounds for a block. However, I value the opinions others on the same level as my own, and there is always a large chance that my actions are incorrect. ] (]) 03:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC) :D
::::Closing with no action per Coppertwig. ] ] 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result:blocked for vand) ==

* Page: {{article|September 6}}
* User: {{userlinks|70.74.213.1}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=September_6&diff=236582085&oldid=236578857

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=September_6&diff=236582723&oldid=236582098
* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=September_6&diff=236583104&oldid=236582733
* 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=September_6&diff=236583163&oldid=236583116
* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=September_6&diff=236583302&oldid=236583177

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:70.74.213.1&diff=236583854&oldid=236583180

This is being echoed across a few different pages, including Miley's own, in addition to the entire Walt Disney Co. article being blanked and replaced by it. A Google search for "miley cyrus death" turns up nothing of significance, but I truly hope that this isn't another Benoit scenario. ] (]) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Already blocked 31 hours for vandalism, which this appears to have been. ] ] 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)



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

* Page: {{article|Lwów pogrom (1918)}}
* User: {{userlinks|Boodlesthecat}}

* Previous version reverted to: see below

* 1st revert: (Boodlesthecat removes info about prisoners and Piotrowski's reference)
* rewriting the article: Boodlesthecat rewrites the lead, this edits includes weaseling of Piotrowski'ref, this version will be reverted to)
* 2nd revert: (restoring older lead version seen in his rewritten version and weaseling of Piotrowski)
* 3rd revert: (removing a para referenced to Piotrowski)
* 4th revert: (removing ref claim that "more Poles than Jews have died" and restoring unnecessary weaseling/attribution of Piotrowski)
* 5th revert: removing information about Poles being killed in the event, restoring alleged info about Polish officers
* Diff of 3RR warning: user blocked for 3RR previously several times, familiar with policy

This is a 3RR violation, or two - with first four or last four, depending on time frame. This user has violated 3RR before, and it is really difficult to edit the article with him reverting this or that all the time. He should know better, shouldn't he? ] (]) 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:Can somebody explain to Tymek the difference between edits and reverts so he will be more careful not to use this forum for harassment in the future. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 05:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Pure ] case. Since when removing false information such as "more Poles than Jews have died" (this was finally acknowledged by original contributor of this incorrect fact ) is an offence? Correction of the mistakes makes Misplaced Pages better, not worse. And it is a part of the editing process, which was very intensive at this article. Boodles contributed significantly to this article, which was expanded more than 5-folds during the last couple of days. ] (]) 09:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*I'm not convinced those are reverts. Also stale. Another admin can feel free to review but no block from me. I'll be watching the page though and expect protection is there is more edit warring. ] (]) 14:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Peter Garrett}}
* User: {{userlinks|Timeshift9}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

On September 5, it was widely reported that Peter Garrett rejected Waratah Coal's $5.3billion project in QLD, Australia - a project that the QLD government itself recognized and declared to be "Australia's largest coal project" on July 15, 2008<ref></ref>. Timeshift9 felt this was an uncited edit, and despite subsequently adding a Marketwire link to this event, the user repeatedly reverted the edit on the basis that he disputes this. If rejection of a $5.3billion investment in QLD is not a significant event here, what is?


{{AN3|p}} Well, this request was done improperly, and investigation proved a two person reversion war. Page protected for two hours, or until participants settle down. Could someone clean up my formatting here? I'm not sure on the new procedures.
--] (]) 06:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:Done: added the AN3 template to the beginning of your message. ] (]) 15:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' I left a note for both parties, since they are both on the edge of a violation if they continue to make similar edits after the protection expires. I hope there will be a proper discussion on the article Talk. ] (]) 15:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks to you both.--] (]) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Kowtow}}.

{{3RRV|Manacpowers}}

Time reported: 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert: ('''actual first revert''')
*5th revert: ('''actual second revert''')
*6th revert: ('''actual third revert''')<small>'''Note''': The time records and the actual descriptions are added for clear examination.--] (]) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)</small>

*Diff of 3RR warning:

'''Comments'''
:He never replys to me no matter how many times I try to talk to him. He just keeps reverting edits. He reverts edits which he dislikes, saying that there's no source, even when they are actually sourced. He sometimes even remove <nowiki>{{FACT}}s</nowiki> and call my edit an original research even though he's removing <nowiki>{{FACT}}s</nowiki> without showing any sources. It does not make any sense at all.
:He has no intention of avoiding edit war at all. He has been blocked three times already for edit wars and keeps doing it again and again. I don't think only-24-hour block will do. --] (]) 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:: sorry, but ] edit is also inappropriate.
:: 1. you redirected article title without any consensus. also your reason of article move is "Wrong". you still do not said, any justifiable reason.
:: 編修 is not only means "Compilation". don't make dictionary by your own convenience.
:: 2. My change is a revert of banned user version edit.
:: ''Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user'' ] (]) 10:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Mispresented 3RR report by Michael Fridreich again''' There is no 3RR violation on the article at this time, and Michael Fridreich knows it too well per his 3RR warning.. However, {{User|Michael Friedrich}} intentionally omitted the very important time records and the actual descriptions on this file because it is quite obvious that Michael Fridrich has been rather gaming the system to block anyone with whom he has been disputing on other multiple disputes. Michale Frideich also reported a malformed 3RR file on another editor yesterday as if the user violated 3RR multiple times, but that is totally wrong. This kind behaviors from bad faith are disruptive, and he is also not a saint either to quote others' history per his block and continued edit warrings within Misplaced Pages. Of course, Manacpower should behave properly, but Michael Fridreich should not be gaming the 3RR policy. This place is not to report Wikietiqutte.--] (]) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nve}} ] (]) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on {{Article|Second Manchu invasion of Korea}}.

{{3RRV|Manacpowers}}

Time reported:] (]) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

*Diff of 3RR warning:

'''Comments'''
Befor this 3rr, he reverted the page 8 times. If I had not shown up to make a compromise, his last revert would have been 12th revert.
*1st revert:
*2nd revert:
*3rd revert:
*4th revert:
*5th revert:
*6th revert:
*7th revert:
*8th revert:
He's already blocked for 3times and he sure has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do.--] (]) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Again, you also 'hide' Time and Date, too. it is not violate 3rr rule within 24 hrs. malformed 3RR report.
:: My change is a revert of banned user version edit.
::''Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user''
:: this is bad faith report. no doubt about it. duplicated report, possibly personal attack. ] (]) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', No, Manacowers, you're wrong on this although Michael Frideirch reported wrong reports previously. You violated 3RR on the article at this time. The user of whom you're accusing is not "banned", just said to be "likely a sock" per CU. Either self-reverting and apologizing to Bentecbye or getting blocked. By the way, Michael Friedrich, you're also responsible for the continued edit warring with him and another over multiple articles.], ], ], ], ]. I think it would be better for the two to have a nice break for the continued edit warring. (Of course, a longer one for Manac).--] (]) 13:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

He(])'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit. but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.] (]) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

24 hours????.'''too short''' .WHY??? He is too bad.
*
*
*
*
*
*
* <small>—Preceding ].comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->--] (]) 07:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Kumdo}}
* Page: {{article|Club for Editing of Korean History}}
* User: {{userlinks|Michael Friedrich}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

]
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->

* Diff of 3RR warning:
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

He(])'s has no intention of avoiding edit war. Only-24-hour block will not do. many user opposed his edit. but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.] (]) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' <u>Any admin who review these three consecutive reports, please block the both users</u> in dispute for the 3RR violations and continued disruptions. (they all violate 3RR)--] (]) 14:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
*{{AN3|bb|24 hours}} ] (]) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Inflation}}
* User: {{userlinks|Misessus}}

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
Unreported case with same editor, same page, can be seen , , and . Also warned at that time in edit line.--] (]) 21:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User has deleted 3RR warning, so evidently aware of existence of rule, . Or doesn't care.--] (]) 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 22:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|5W Public Relations}}
* User: {{userlinks|Emetman}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: (2 warnings)

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
User has an apparent COI concerning the article and has repeatedly removed sourced content in the article's controversy section in what I guess is an attempt to downplay the incident. User has also taken to adding unneeded information and poor sources (AOL videos, blogs, etc) to back it up. Two other editors (besides myself) have been reverting this guy and his associated IPs for the since late last night. This user has actually been POV pushing on this article for awhile. ] (]) 02:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|p}} for two days. Charges of COI editing are floating around. Consider opening a complaint at the ]. The talk page here is very short considering the huge volume of edits here in the last two days. I suggest that editors try to reach consensus on some of the disputed matters on Talk before the protection expires. Blocks will be issued if edit-warring continues after that time. ] (]) 04:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Due to vandalism, is necessary to be present. Why is there so much Agro details ? These so called editors are I believe all the same, or relevant individual. Any proof at all of COI ? Simply biased individuals.

I have proposed language settlements on the 5W edit page - Lets settle it there today and call it a day and leave the page alone. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

These individuals are posting ad naseum against all 5w entrees on other pages. Its clear bias and Mosmof and others should be banned.] (]) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:Please continue this discussion at ]. Anyone who is very concerned about this article who doesn't yet have a Misplaced Pages account, please register. IP editors who don't edit outside of the 5W article do not start from a position of great credibility, when they suggest that others may have a COI. If you make such charges, then you should be willing to say whether you yourself have an affiliation to the subject of the article. ] (]) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Squaring the circle}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.117.6.149}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
The link added to the page was considered irrelevant and spam by three different editors, independently, and removed twice by two of them (I was one of the two). The user was warned before his latest revert (the sixth time he added the link to the page). The user has been adding a link to the same page to numerous other pages; it has been reverted in some, in others not yet. For example: (]), (]), (]), and (]).

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

] (]) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
::User has been warned to stop spamming. There are a couple legitish, test style edits in there in places, maybe.--] (]) 04:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:::The user just added the link to ] yet again . This is his sixth revert. And he continued to add the link to other pages where it does not belong: e.g. , even after being warned. ] (]) 04:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:::And . ] (]) 06:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Made a final warning. Use my talk page if it happens again--] (]) 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders roster|}}
* User: {{userlinks|68.146.103.217|}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->

While this is a simple formatting change, this user has repeatedly ignored the template format. All players are listed numerically, I have yet to figure out whether the change is for alphabetical or depth chart reasons. All the same, I have placed a note on both the user's talk page and the template's talk page, explaining the format of the template. I believe this user may also be the same user (70.73.106.16) I had the same problem with a few days ago. ] (]) 03:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:{{AN3|nv}} Only three reverts given, and I'm not seeing a fourth in the page history. If I'm wrong, please link to the fourth revert; otherwise no vio. ] ] 11:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
]. {{3RRV|Grayghost01}}

*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.-->

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

*1st revert:

*2nd revert:

*3rd revert:
*4th revert:

*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: In addition, a warning in an edit summary at was also given.

This sequence is the result of conflicts between this editor versus myself and several other editors (one other has particulary been singled out by Grayghost) over several articles including ], ], and ]. The editor repeatedly categorizes others' edits as vandalism both in edit summaries and by actual warnings placed on user talk pages. He identifies his particular POV a well as editing style at ]. ] (]) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Grayghost01 has violated 3RR in my opinion; but the 3RR warning did not include a link to the 3RR policy. Although Grayghost01 has been editing for some time, the user's talk page history is less than 50 edits and I didn't notice any other 3RR warnings on it. I posted a . (non-admin opinion) ] (]) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{la|Johann Sebastian Bach}}
* User: {{userlinks|AzureFury}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

Note that the first edit was not a revert. That was the first time I added the POV-section tag. ] (] | ]) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, the three actual reverts were restoring a NPOV tag that was removed with personal attacks as justifications, such as calling me and requesting my concerns be placed on the talk page ''.'' Another called me "queruous" and said I placed the tag because of "".
-
- My attempts to address the issue on the talk page have met with little response to the issues with the article, as Tony1 has repeatedly chosen to attack me personally instead.
- ] (] | ]) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:For the record, was his original posting of the NPOV tag. He has posted it five times now. ] ] 05:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, rather than tag the whole article, I tagged only the lead. ] (] | ]) 05:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: ]

(e.c.) Aggressive behaviour not conducive to collaborative editing; disregarding of reasonable calls for cooperation by other editors. Four reverts replacing his NPOV tag, a tag that is regarded as quite inappropriate by other editors. Previous blocking for 24 hrs and calls for improved behaviour noted on the offender's talk page.] ] 05:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is not a warning, he is informing me that he has reported me here. ] (] | ]) 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' It's arguable whether this was a 3RR violation or not. AzureFury posted a "'''npov'''" tag at 08:53 6 September, and after it was reverted, posted a "'''POV-section'''" tag at 09:08. If posting that second tag counts as a revert, then there were four reverts and a 3RR violation. The last three reverts were re-posting the POV-section tag. On the talk page, 3 editors oppose the tag and one other editor having the tag. ] (]) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Inflation}}
* User: {{userlinks|Gregalton}}

* 1st revert: Previous version reverted to: - he reverted addition of: "Today, increases and decreases in the money supply mainly result..." from "Original definition" section.
* 2nd revert: Previous version reverted to:
* 3rd revert: Previous version reverted to:
* 4th revert: Previous version reverted to: - he removed addition of: "In contrast to these two camps..." from introduction.


Gregalton reported ] for edit warring on the same article (). ] ] 09:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|International Order of Saint Stanislaus}}
* User: {{userlinks|76.109.150.169}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->--Yopie 14:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Does not appear to be 'vandalism' as claimed by IP. Blocked for 24 hours.

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

* Page: {{article|Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis}}
* User: {{userlinks|Verdadeverdadeira}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: 18:24, 3 September 2008
* 2nd revert: 17:58, 5 September 2008
* 3rd revert: 16:19, 6 September 2008

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->] (]) 15:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not seeing "more than three" reversions, nor do these occur within a 24 hour time period. I'm also not seeing any reversions after the warning (which you placed one minute before reporting here). ] ] 15:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

* Page: ]
* User: ]

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
We've just had a deletion discussion for this article, with the user in question being the only one in favour of keeping the article before the discussion was closed as no consensus. They are now reacting to the removal of unsourced and poorly sourced content (such as unverifiable resume details from LinkedIn) by removing other content which they don't like, and restoring the unreferenced content, despite two other editors requesting that they discuss their concerns on the Talk page. --] (]) 15:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:User has been previously alerted to the 3RR rule. Blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Reporting someone (98.209.199.182) ==

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

* Page: {{article|<!-- Classh of ninja series (characters) -->}}
* User: {{userlinks|<!-- 98.209.199.182 -->}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series)&action=edit&section=13 or http://en.wikipedia.org/Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series)

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: Changed some characters
* 2nd revert: Changed some characters
* 3rd revert: Changed some characters
* 4th revert: Changed some characters

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series)&action=edit&section=13 or http://en.wikipedia.org/Naruto:_Clash_of_Ninja_(series)

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> He continues to change the characters with no proof and does it more than 3 times a day!

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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.

    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

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

    Page: UNITA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102408 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    2. 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102323 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    3. 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102267 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    4. 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268101988 by MrOllie (talk)"
    5. 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)

    Page: Ahmed al-Sharaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BubbleBabis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. (31 December 2024)
    2. (6 January 2024)
    3. (7 January 2025)
    4. (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)

    Page: Science of Identity Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Cambial Yellowing (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"
    2. 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"
    3. 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267995628 by Hipal (talk)"
    4. 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hipal (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "3rr"


    Comments:

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

    Page: History of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Garudam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    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)

    Page: Westville Boys' High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 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:

    1. 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Westville Boys' High School."
    2. 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:

    1. 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)

    Page: Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    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
    """
    Warning icon 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.
      1. I add templates to an article with faults
      2. The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
      3. I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
      4. 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.
      5. 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.
      6. Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
      7. I notify the user
      8. I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
      9. 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
      10. 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)

    Page: Biology and sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Genetic influence"
    2. 23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
    3. 23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268251743 by MrOllie (talk)"
    4. 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:

    1. 23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 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)

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

    Page: The Time (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268310547 by C.Fred (talk) Already took it to talk"
    2. 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268310269 by PEPSI697 (talk)"
    3. 04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268309093 by Tenebre.Rosso.Sangue995320 (talk)"
    4. 04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268308251 by Galaxybeing (talk) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
    5. 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)

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

    Page: Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 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."
    2. 08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268345471 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
    3. 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268344773 by CNMall41 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

    • I am going to advise that we delay any action here until Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Shecose is resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      That is because CNMall41's only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this is block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Page protected: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (WP:ATD-R). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for G5 (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Shecose, to satisfy his personal ego (above and in Special:Diff/1268349248 too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Page: Korean clans of foreign origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ger2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:00 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
    2. 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."
    3. 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."
    4. 04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
    5. 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:

    1. 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."
    2. 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 04:36 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: New Section"
    2. 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)

    Categories: