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 14:53, 10 January 2009 editHighKing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers27,850 edits →Orangemarlin reported by HighKing (Result: ): Withdrawn← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:23, 9 January 2025 edit undoShecose (talk | contribs)56 edits →User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: ) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
] <!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
{{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 = 88 |counter = 491
|algo = old(72h) |algo = old(2d)
|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude> }}</noinclude>
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
{{noadminbacklog}}
__TOC__


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
=Reports=
:Please place new reports {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can the ] for it.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
<!--
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Chance997}}
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS.
-->


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Editors warned about tags) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
{{User5|Melonbarmonster2}} has been attempting to enforce his opinion on the article ] over the subject of ]. The general consensus has agreed that the subject is pertinent, and that it should be included as such in the way it has been presented. Melonbarmonster2 has consistently deleted or tagged the section of the article with {{tl|disputed}} and {{tl|POV-section}} tags which have been reverted/removed by at least seven different contributors. He has refused mediation and is in violation of the ], ] and ] policies for which he has been warned against repeatedly on the ] page.
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
I would ask a non-involved administrator to please investigate this and make a decision over the behavior of this individual. Also, please see the previous alias of {{user5|Melonbarmonster}} for other histories of this user


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
--] (<small> ]</small>) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:{{admin note}} Could you provide ] please? — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are least two dozen more, these are just the ones in the past week or two. Also please look at the talk page for the gist of the argument. --] (<small> ]</small>) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Although I strongly disagree with Melonbarmonster's edits on this dispute of the article, two facts should be noted here. Two other editors such as {{User|Kuebie}}, and {{User|KoreanSentry}} support his edit (actually, one of them has initiated the current issue) and there were no 3RR violation. Moreover the issue is not matter of whether the dog meat section should be excluded from the article, but he and other two users claim that the section is not in a fitting categorization; Dog meat is not part of Korean common diet unlike beef, pork, chicken. I think the block request is not a good way to solve the dispute.--] 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:*'''Comment.''' Tag addition is not exempt from 3RR. Editors who find themselves in Melon's position are supposed to start a wider conversation instead of reverting. If necessary they should start an article RFC. Since at least three different editors have been reverting Melon, he can't claim consensus for his view. I think he should be blocked for edit-warring. His last such block was for 4 days last August. By the principle of escalation the next block should be one week. Since I issued the block last August I hope that a different admin will take action this time. ] (]) 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::Good grief. Please not that there has already been an RfC(which I fully participated in) resulting in other editors besides myself who have expressed disagreement with Jerem43. There is no consensus for either view! That's the nature of disputes and hence the need for these tags and dispute resolution protocols. I have also participated extensively in widen the discussion, taking time off from making edits per ], and am working on a mediation request, etc..


I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::* '''Comment''' - this report is not an attempt to "get back" at melonbarblaster or to resolve the dispute, it is because of his behavior in putting his position forward: His constant reinstatement of the tags is a violation of the ], his refusal to engage in mediation on technicalities, his inability to accept compromise and his refusal to consider the position of others all amounts to ]. The sum total of his behaviors is ] which is the problem we are dealing with. --] (<small> ]</small>) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
As you can see from the time, date of reverts reported above, this is not a 3RR violation but Jerem43 has stopped being reasonable for some time now. The reverts are spread beyond a 24 hour period. Furthermore, what Jeremy and others have been reverting is deletion of dispute tags. Jerem43 claims that in spite of multiple editors including myself disagreeing with him, that there is no "dispute". He has continuously deleted the dispute tags. Mind you that there was an RfC where the comments were split(no consensus) and there have been mediation requests and a mediation request being drawn up right now. How that doesn't constitute a "dispute" is beyond me. What good is existence of tags and RfC if editors are not going to respect RfC results??? I have asked Jerem43 to stop reverting and allow dispute resolution steps to resolve the edit disputes and leave the tags while proper protocols are taken to no avail.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
Please note that I asked for a


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ToadGuy101}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Korean_cuisine&diff=260623905&oldid=259731575


'''Previous version reverted to:'''


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] (]) 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267771905|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267757010|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
# {{diff2|1267751151|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267747621|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
: '''Response''' - I've made very few comments in this issue as I have mainly been a passive observer in the dispute. After 1/2 dozen or so editors, myself included, had removed his tags multiple times is when I stepped in with my first major comment regarding disruptive editing. In my posting I clearly stated that I believe his behaviors constitute ] and that from hence forward I would treat him as a vandal and suggested other editors do the same. In my followup posting I stated to him that was exasperated with his failure to act in good faith and engage in a meaningful conversation with other contributors.
# {{diff2|1267751597|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
: Additionally, I have never stated there was not a disagreement over the issue - there are at least three other contributors that hold the same opinion as Melonbarmonster; however none of the others have resorted to pattern of behavior that he has exhibited. His participation in the RfC really did not exist as all he did was repeatedly state his position and ignore out of hand the comments and suggestions of those who did not agree with his positions. The same can be said for the mediation request, he did not agree to it because it felt that the request was improperly worded. These are not good faith behaviors, and are contrary to the spirit of WP. My problem is not with the subject of the consumption of dog meat in Korea but with Melonbarmonster's behaviors. --] (<small> ]</small>) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267301347|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"
:::For sake of not continuing dispute here, please find my response here].] (]) 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
This isn't quite 3RR, but its close. Also M2 seems to be the only one pushing the tags at the moment, with spurious edit summaries. If he continues, I think he should be blocked ] (]) 09:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:The results of the RfC should be respected. There are a group of editors who are claiming consensus in spite of RfC and talk page discussions. They outnumber and outedit editors with differing views so have been reverting in collusion while refusing to listen to opposing views. We are currently attempting to agree upon a list of issues to be mediated. There certainly has been reverting but it's most definitely from both sides within the boundaries of the 3rr principle while dispute resolution steps have been followed.] (]) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:: It should be ''respected'', but no-one is bound by it ] (]) 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I see your point but this block of editors are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who are disagreeing with them and are revert warring, and stonewalling discussion in the talk page. This is why I suggested that we try to come up with a list of issues to be mediated and move this into formal dispute resolution.] (]) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I would support WMC's suggestion that ''if he continues, I think he should be blocked.'' This would imply that M2 would be blocked the next time he restores the tags. His commitment to ] is very hard to discern, given that he was the only one to reject the mediation. He seems to feel that he is entitled to do infinite reverts because mixed views were expressed in the last RfC. *Active* search for dispute resolution should immunize an editor from blocks for warring, but just sitting around and repeating the old reverts is not actively seeking consensus. ] (]) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That's just false. I have worked hard in trying to move the discussion toward dispute resolution protocols and have refrained from making changed to text or moving the subsection in the talk page. If you take a careful look in the talk page sections about Christ's mediation request, I explained that while I agree with mediation, I do not agree with the "issues to be mediated" listed in that particular request. I also proposed we take our eyes off the article in ] and suggested that we work together on a issues to be mediated list TOGETHER and file another mediation request. That truce had worked and was in effect until Jeremy instigated this last spat of reverting. Unfortunately, the block of editors sitting on this issue are refusing to even recognize the existence of editors who disagree with them(ignoring RfC results) and ] (]) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Melonbarmonster2, just promise that you would not persistently revert to include the templates from now until the dispute is settled. If the other two editors who support your view reverted to your version, you may have stood on a better positon. However, they just left their onions to the talk page. The content itself is not disputed, and you're against its "categorization". However, the templates serve for "content dispute". So please present your solution for the dispute rather than reverting at this time. Chris has tried to compromise with you as changing the header, Staple foods to Foodstuffs, but you have not shown anything to end the dispute. I think further insistence only may invite you a block.--] 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually suggested that we create separate section for "fringe food culture" that includes dog meat along with other fringe foods to no avail. Instead of relevant responses all I've been getting is Jeremy and other revert warring and refusing to even bother consider that categorizing dog meat along with vegetables is factually inaccurate. I honestly think categorization and subsections qualify as being "content". I've been working hard to move this discussion toward a resolution and have held back making changes to the text of the article or moving the "dog meat" subsection without consensus.] (]) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:You're currently shooting your feet. Drop it now.--] 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - The editor attempting to remove all mention of dog meat from the Korean cuisine article, and his/her supporters, state that it's not eaten every day in Korea. Neither is '']'' or many other dishes or drinks mentioned in that article, yet they are highly notable and worthy of mention. The section heading was changed from "Staple foods" to "Foodstuffs" at the urging of Melonbarmonster2, in an effort to generate consensus, but that still was not enough: s/he wishes all mention of dog meat to be removed from the article, despite the significant tonnages slaughtered and consumed per day, the thousands of restaurants, etc. We either aim to be encyclopedic or we do not. Excluding, or censoring content because it makes editors from certain ethnic or national groups feel bad about themselves due to being seen in a negative light by other cultures (ironically, this editor claims that s/he supports the legalization of dog meat consumption and sale) is not a business we are in at our encyclopedia. ] (]) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have never asked for censoring or exclusion of content. But this is the strawman that this block of editors have created for themselves. Even in spite of my many explanations that this is not my position they've ignored my real position and have repeated this false mantra over and over again stonewalling any progress on this article. Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.] (]) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' Badagnani is deliberately saying such the untruth from bad faith. It should be noted that Badagnani and Melon have made a long-term rivalry over one year which is indeed disruptive to the article. As far as I've known, Melonbarmonster never claimed to exclude the whole section, but the section should be moved to appropriate space. Unlike your false claim, ] is mentioned in the article (see ]) Also your comparison is totally false. It has been sold in canned item for over 10 years, can be found anywhere in any grocery store, convenient store, or vending machine unlike dog meat. It is also irony that Badagnani was blocked for disruption at the article by Jeremy's report.--] 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
*'''Comment''' - I have said most of what I have wanted to say on the talk page for Korean cuisine. As stated I compromised and changed the heading for the "staple foods" to foodstuffs, which I actually agree was a good change. Melonbarmonster2's argument is that dog meat is not equal to the other animal proteins as it is not consumed as often as they are. I say, let's ask the Buddhists in the country then if they feel that any of the animal proteins should be consumed, they might argue that their version of Korean cuisine should not have any meat included in the Korean cuisine article. The issue here though is not content dispute, it is the fact that Melonbarmonster2 is not actively discussing what he/she wants done to the article, only that they feel that dog meat isn't presented properly and continues to just repeat it over and over and over again while reverting the tags a multitude of times. Maybe it wasn't in 24 hours, but as the policy states, multiple reverts outside of the 24 hour time period constitutes edit warring, which is held in the same context as the 3RR. The editor refused to take part in the mediation I proposed, stating they did not believe the issue was represented properly, although all of the other editors agreed, and then their contribution to the Rfc was pointless as well as they made a statement, but made no academically sound rebuttal. Instead he/she is just instigating edit warring, wehter intentional or not, they have been given ample room to expalin themselves and they have not. As I am involved with the content of this article, I do not feel appropriate in enforcing any Admin. responsibilities as it would be a conflict of interest.--] (]) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::I specifically stated that I agreed with the mediation but not the issues listed in that particular request. I've stated this clearly from the beginning.] (]) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::I still think that this report should have been on ANI, not here. Well, Jeremy, Chirs and Badagnani reverted more than once (twice or triple) for the templates which are also edit warring.--] 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::So, you disagree with how the mediation request was framed. What initiative will you take to reach the next step? Believe it or not, when there are more people on the other side sometimes that indicates that *consensus* is against you. ("''Seeing as how they outnumber me, they've been able to get away with this.''") ] (]) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Ed, RfC results clearly show I'm not alone in feeling this categorization is factually inaccurate. I also proposed from the VERY BEGINNING in the first mediation request page that we should come up with a list of issues to be mediation that is acceptable by involved parties and file a new mediation request. But discussion is currently stonewalled, not by me, but the block of editors are refusing to move beyond strawman positions, claiming consensus in spite of at least 3 editors who have voiced dissent and refusing to acknowledge different views. They are not even acknowledging my good faith disagreement on the edit issue because they outnumber me and they are trying to push their POV through on technicalities. I really wish we could get beyond claiming consensus by ignoring dissenting editors so that we can move forward to dispute resolution protocols.] (]) 05:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Melon, if you agree not to revert the article for your POV, this issue would be already ended. I think you're not currently acting wise. --] 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1000mods}} <br />
I am more than happy and willing to agree to stop edit warring on these tags. Specific edit issues on tags or other content should be discussed in the talk page of the article, not here in any case.] (]) 05:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mindxeraser}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:You need to stop doing things that go against consensus, independent contributors have agreed that this is what is causing the whole issue.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
:You will need to do the following:
#
:* Stop posting the tags;
#
:* Actually engage in the conversation as opposed to stating your opinions over and over;
#
:* Stop parsing words, in the case of the mediation request join in and put your reasons why you disagree out there. Ask that the proposal be modified to address your concerns if you feel something is missing from the request, and tell us why;
#
:* Please insure that your reasoning meets the standards of ], ], and ]. Also, please do not engage in ].


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:and finally:
:* Accept that your position may not be the winning one, and let the result stand.


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:If you had done this from the first, none of this would be going on. --] (<small> ]</small>) 06:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
::::More claims of consensus in spite of RfC results and multiple editors expressing dissent... This is why we need mediation. Jeremy broke the ] and instigated this last spat of reverts. You need to take your own advice and stop your disruptive behavior.] (]) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
: I made no claims. I am stating what we expect of you: ] and ]. What I am saying is that if things do not go your way, you will be expected to live with it. Can you do that? Can you work well with others? Can you ] that what my purpose here is to help the article? --] (<small> ]</small>) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
:::When you tell people to not to "go against consensus", you are assuming consensus.] (]) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::'''Close?''' I suggest this thread be continued elsewhere, perhaps on the article Talk. In the near future, if any dispute tags are changed on the article without consensus to do so first being obtained on the Talk page, I suspect that one or more admins will take action. We won't know for sure until that happens. ] (]) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::EdJohnston, the only editors who have been "changing" dispute tags have been Jeremy and his friends. Their position is that there is "no dispute" and I am not respecting consensus(ignoring dissent of multiple editors) and so the dispute tags are inappropriate. That is why they have repeatedly removed the dispute tags.
::::I admit to my part in the revert war. But Jeremy and others who have left comments here have been fully engaged in revert warring. Progress to discussion has been constantly stonewalled due to Jeremy and his block of editors who are refusing acknowledge, respect the dissent of other editors and are reverting dispute tags.] (]) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:: We should know, Dog meat is not considered as normal Korean diets, most Koreans don't even try Dog meat. Even Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos all consumed more dog meats than Koreans but they don't included in their cuisine topic. I think we all know person who edits Korean cuisine to includes Dog meat is to make mockery on Korea. --Korsentry 04:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I am closing this report with the result, '''Editors warned about tags.''' Anyone who adds or removes tags, after first explicitly verifying that that there is a consensus on ] in support of their changes, has nothing to worry about. Those who have not yet found a consensus but revert anyway may be sanctioned. ] (]) 06:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
== ] reported by ] (Result:) ==
{{AN3|b|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
* Page: {{article|Albanians}}
* User: {{userlinks|Forsena}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fernanda Torres}}
* Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
#
#
#


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, actions evidently indicate a Serb nationalist account.There are enough proofs show this user is against ] and ]. ] (]) 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) ==
# {{diff2|1267808569|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
# {{diff2|1267807858|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
# {{diff2|1267807213|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
# {{diff2|1267806982|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
# {{diff2|1267806103|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* Page: {{article|Greeks}}
# {{diff2|1267807698|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
* User: {{userlinks|Deucalionite}}
# {{diff2|1267808131|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"


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


# (''"reinstated old..."'')
# (''"data ... reinstated..."'')
# (''"undid..."'')
# (''"rv..."'')


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*Earlier version reverted to:
{{AN3|b|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*Earlier (semi-)reverts to the same passage: , , , , , , , .


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
Experienced user, no warning necessary.


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, pushing undue weight views on pre-history and archaeology with a nationalist agenda. Has been pushing this agenda for years. Long previous block log, please treat with utmost severity. ] ] 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Csknp}}
: Has form; incivility. 48h ] (]) 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
:"extremely problematic POV editor", "pushing undue weight views on pre-history and archaeology", you are not talking about yourself, are you Fut. Perf? ...Walnutjk... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Link removed, no 3RR vio) ==
# {{diff2|1267452946|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
# {{diff2|1267525585|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* Page: {{article|Douglas Spotted Eagle}}
# {{diff2|1267644988|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
* User: {{userlinks|Badagnani}}
# {{diff2|1267646582|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- 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. -->
# {{diff|oldid=1267699885|diff=1267736737|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Previous version reverted to:
This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}} (by {{u|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


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


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
the source is . It uses google's cache to circumvent the blacklist filter placed by Misplaced Pages. It additionally fails ] and ]. This source is discussed in ]. Please help. ] (]) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
:'''Comment.''' I have asked Badagnani to undo his last edit, the one where he restores the Associated Content link to the article. He is only at 3RR so far. If he puts the link back again he would be at 4RR and possibly in violation of ] as well. A block would be logical at that point. There are ways of getting a link put on the 'local whitelist' if you can show it is appropriate for a specific article. Associated Content as a whole is blacklisted. ] (]) 02:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
::Looking at the article, that's the only source I can see that has much information on the subject. Discussing the issue on the talk page would have been a good thing, although there was some back and forth in the edit summaries. Is there a question about the accuracy of the content provided in the source? ] (]) 02:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
:::We are not supposed to bypass the ] without getting approval. The page about Douglas Spotted Eagle, while informative, is hosted on a forbidden domain, associatedcontent.com, that has been used for spamming. You can request approval for individual links. See ]. ] (]) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
::::] links Fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our ] and ] guidelines. The article in the link does not appear to be professionally written and doesn't seem to have any sources. Additionaly, Associated Content articles;
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
::::*Have '''no''' editorial oversight (see ]) and articles are essentially ]
::::*Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
::::*Fails Misplaced Pages's core content policies:
:::::*]
:::::**]
:::::**]
:::::**]
:::::*]
:::::**]
::::I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are other reasonable ] and ] alternatives available. Would think that repeated reinsertion is disruptive per policies.--] (]) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Here's the ] on ''''']''''', See ''#2''. Adding a blacklisted link without being whitelisted first, is not permitted, without exception. However, with the other prominent content issues, there is little chance it will be whitelisted.--] (]) 20:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::'''Result:''' Link has been removed, there was no 3RR vio. Thanks for cooperation, and thanks Hu12 for policy advice. ] (]) 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


* Page: {{article|Paraphyly}}
* User: {{userlinks|83.254.20.63}}


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <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 -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
User has edit warred on ] as well.--] (]) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
# (31 December 2024)
*'''24 hours''' - this user's IP seems to be semi-static. If he evades the block by moving on to another IP, please note that here or ping an admin so that the next IP can be blocked and the articles can be s-protected. --] (]) 13:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) ==


* Page: {{article|Odd Della Robbia}}
* User: {{userlinks|Jeremie Belpois}}


* Previous version reverted to: Article is being restore from a redirect. He's adding more of the old page as he's reverting. First attempt is . '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* Diff of 3RR warning:
: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)
:User violating 3RR on ] as well. . , and are the first three. At least 3 more reverts after that. ] (]) 09:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''31 hours''' - looks like 8RR on two different articles. That's an accomplishment. --] (]) 14:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC) ::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==


* Page: {{article|Spontaneous generation}} '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
* User: {{userlinks|Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
<!-- 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: '''Previous version reverted to:'''


<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed --> '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
# {{diff2|1268002110|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
# {{diff2|1267995715|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267994453|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
* 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 -->


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* Diff of 3RR warning:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
Further signs of non-collaboative behavior:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
:There haven't been any reverts since the warning was issued. I suggest we leave this one open for a bit and see what happens. --] (]) 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Hi, those are lies, see my categorical refutation of all allegations in the talk section at that page, or alternatively I can post it here if you like? Can I 'counter sue' Novalis for his lies?
] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 08:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
As to the profanity, that was my son, who is at an age where that kind of thing is funny to him. I apologize on his behalf.] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 10:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
#
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
I was told I was welcome to oin the discussion; There doesn't appear to be one. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Your son shouldn't be using your id. You shouldn't be calling people liars are you are doing here and on the talk page. You clearly broke ] and are fortunate that no one blocked you. The only allegations I can see are that you broke ], that you threatened to wipe out text, that you said users should be banned, and that you called others liars. These are backed up with difs which seem to back them up. I suggest that you read ] and make sure that you don't break ] again - and note that 3RR is not an entitlement. ] (]) 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
I categorically refuted all those claims and proved he was lying, why do you continue to repeat his baseless, slanderous personal attacks? (I didn't know about the three revert rule btw, I am waiting 24 hours before I make any further alterations) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:'''Interim result:''' Magnetic has not edited past his first 3RR warning. However, when invited to comment here, he has left a number of personal attacks on the noticeboard. I've invited him to retract his 'liar' comments. If he does not do so, he may be blocked for ]. I don't have a good feeling about this editor's future on Misplaced Pages, but if he is willing to retract his comments, that would be a good sign. I am thinking of issuing a long block if he does not do so, and I invite comment on that. ] (]) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Hi Ed. If I proved Novangelis's numerous personal attacks and allegations were unfounded lies, why can't I say he is lying? Please answer this. Thanks.
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))
] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''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 .
:'''Result:''' After an extended discussion over at ] and after quoting of Misplaced Pages policy, Magnetic could not be persuaded to remove his comments above about 'lying' editors, so he is '''blocked''' 48 hours for disruptive editing. ] (]) 15:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*: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)
== ] <!-- Place name of user you are reporting here --> reported by ] <!-- Place your name here --> (Result: indef) ==


: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)
* Page: {{article|Rick Reilly<!-- Place name of article here -->}}
* User: {{userlinks|Tanninglamp<!-- Place name of user you are reporting here -->}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
<!-- 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. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
* Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- 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 -->
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268203165|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204621|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204745|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204943|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268205104|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268208200|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
* Diff of 3RR warning:
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
The user has evidently been in a long-term edit war over this one item he keeps trying to insert into the article despite consensus and BLP concerns. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*72 hours --] (]) 17:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Tanninglamp has been pushing this same paragraph for nearly 2 years now: ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm considering upgrading it to indef. Anyone interested in opining can take a look at ]. If he were making all of these edits from a logged in account, we would have indeffed him long ago, but unless we're going to range block his IPs (don't tempt me) incentivizing him to edit from dynamic IPs is only going to make it tougher to track him. --] (]) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::I see no reason not to indef based only on the logged in edits. User has 3 blocks after only 44 edits made with this account. Only motivation here appears to be to post negative information about Rick Reilly and Keith Olbermann. --]]] 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Ok, I'm convinced after fully reviewing everything. Indeffed. --] (]) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Fully support the indef. This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable, even if it's spread out over almost two years. And we'll deal with the fallout like we always do: one sock at a time. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Fully support the indef. He's a classic POV warrior, unwilling to listen or discuss. ] (]) 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
== ] reported by ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> (Result: 48 hours) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
*] violation on
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
{{Article|Syracuse University}}. {{3RRV|SmoothFlow}}: Time reported: 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''


# <small>(edit summary: "sorry, couldn't sleep.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Subheading")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Research */ why does this person keep reversing my addition? That makes, like, three times in a day!")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry */ I am talking - are you listening?")</small>


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Diff of warning:
#


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
—] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
A bit more information. ] appears to be a ] editing ]. Some of their edits, such as , are borderline vandalism to an article undergoing an FAC. I would suggest an extended block for more than edit-warring, but also for disruptive vandalism. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
I've made a revision to this in that ] is still at 4RR within the 24 hour period, including two reverts after the warning. Can someone please deal with this disruptive SPA? Thanks. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:I have tried to discuss SmoothFlow's behavior with him, but I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere. Subsequent to the reverts OrangeMarlin posted above were , which contained a partial revert and a copy/paste from a source website. I am an involved administrator so I cannot make a block myself, but I do suggest that this seems to not be heading in a helpful direction. --] (]) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::{{AN3|b|48 hours}} Edit warring. I am leaving it to some other admin to decide whether Orangemarlin ought to be sanctioned as well. (See the matching 3RR complaint below). As I stepped through all the edits, it was hard for me to believe that SmoothFlow was making a good-faith effort to improve the article. Orangemarlin must have believed he was reverting vandalism. I know the feeling, but these edits are not exactly vandalism by Misplaced Pages's definition. The article is up for consideration as a ], and SmoothFlow was adding eccentric stuff which seems (to me personally) unlikely to assist in its reaching that status. Numerous people were reverting his changes, not just Orangemarlin. SmoothFlow was hardly making much of an effort to persuade others to support his view on the Talk page. I am making this 48 hours due to Smooth's extreme persistence, after being reverted, and his apparent lack of clue regarding the opinions of other editors. ] (]) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Concur with this and with no block of Orangemarlin. SmoothFlow I think is acting in good faith, but <s>he seems to be around 14 and so his edits just aren't very useful. (Apologies if I guessed wrong and this isn't to say that all 14-year-olds are too young to edit Misplaced Pages, <small>other disclaimers as appropriate</small>.)</s> he is very inexperienced and his edits are not helpful. --] (]) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
== ] reported by ] (Result: Not blocked) ==


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
*] violation on
{{Article|Syracuse University}}. {{3RRV|Orangemarlin}}


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)
Like:


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
One - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262404627&oldid=262400461


:]
Two - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262476875&oldid=262472517
:"""
:] 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)
Three - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262548885&oldid=262527491
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{re|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
*::::# I notify the user
*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
Four - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syracuse_University&diff=262572860&oldid=262570551


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
Five - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262572860


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
Six - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262574114


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Seven - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syracuse_University&diff=next&oldid=262576756


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Eight - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syracuse_University&diff=prev&oldid=262660797 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
# {{diff2|1268272867|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
# {{diff2|1268269093|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268248948|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Everytime I try to add something, this person keeps removing it. Plus he's reporting me now, apparently. What can I do about this? ] (]) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
:It looks like he is reverting your edits because they are about 20% useful and 80% unhelpful. For example, "it's funny" is not a good reason to . --] (]) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
::See the case one above this one, unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'm just going to close this. (Nobody has touched it in the nearly 24 hours it has been here.) 3RR is about deterring edit warring, and OM was not edit warring. At this point, this is stale anyway. --] (]) 18:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Page: {{article|One Foot in the Grave}}
* User: {{userlinks|Edito*Magica}}


:'''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)
<!-- 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. -->


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
* Previous version reverted to:
: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)


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
<!-- 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 -->


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
I am involved since I removed the templates in question. But this is getting to 5 or 6rr by now. ] ] 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*This is not the only instance of this editor's edit warring. He is imposing his idiosyncratic style onto various articles about British sitcoms. Delving into his history shows similar disputes with other editors. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
*'''Blocked''' 24 hours. --] (]) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
== ] reported by - ] <small>(] • ])</small> - (Result: blocked for spamming) ==


*] violation on
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
{{Article|Anthony Kim}}. {{3RRV|Anthonykimfan}}: Time reported: 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* External links */")</small>


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
—- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:Anthonykimfan has been blocked for spamming in response to my ] report. --] (]) 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected one week) ==


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
* Page: {{article|Black Flag (band)}}
* User: {{userlinks|IllaZilla}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- 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. -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
# {{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:'''
* 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:


This user has been attempting to change the opening sentence to this article very much out of consensus and has now broken 3RR in doing so.--] (]) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Protected one week''' - both sides violated 3RR and could be blocked (translation: don't whine that the other party isn't being blocked). This has been going on for a while and is a ] argument. Talk it out on the talk page. Figure something out. --] (]) 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==


* Page: {{article|List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts}}
* User: {{userlinks|QuackGuru}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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. -->


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:


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)
<!-- 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:

] is a chronic edit warrior (see his block log) and abuser of talk pages with ]. The first two reverts are part of an ongoing effort by some editors to push the "pseudoscience" label as far as possible, no matter whether the sources meet NPOV's ]. The last two reverts appear to be tit-for-tat; regarding the just-mentioned debate of label-pushing, I've been objecting on the talk page to some of QuackGuru's sources, so now he is reverting the NPOV inclusion of mainstream groups like ] and ] to balance out the opinions of advocacy groups like ]. Thanks for your time, --] (]) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:This was not 4 reverts. Making consecutive edits () are not reverts. Making false 3 RR reports is not productive. ] (]) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:Backin72 has not shown how the sources are relevant to pseudoscience. I have asked more than once how the sources specifically address the pseudoscience label without any direct reply to my question. The article should not turn into a dumping ground for irrelevant non-specific references. ] (]) 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

::I stand corrected on the "consecutive reverts", but hold that your two rapid-fire reverts that followed, taken together with your history, still violate the spirit of ] and deserve sanctioning. "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule." As for the relevance of the sources to the article, that's for the article talk page; whether or not an editor is "right" is never an excuse to revert war. --] (]) 01:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:::According to Backin72 it is for making reverts. Backin72 has made several reverts within the last few days. Backin72 has but has returned to Misplaced Pages with his old account. When Backin72 thinks it is santionable he thinks he should be santioned because he has made many reverts. I hope Backin72 is not using his old account to try to get editors blocked. Hmm. ] (]) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

::::My (in-process vanishing) on WP is irrelevant; I've got a couple loose ends to tie up, and that's my prerogative. Your insinuation that I'm gaming by using my old account is baseless, and I request that you retract it (unless you can produce evidence). Furthermore, linking me to my old handle is harassment, and you should stop it immediately. As for sanctioning for edit warring, your block log is awful, which justifies a block for edit warring. I've never been blocked because, although I'm not perfect, my mistakes are minor and infrequent. --] (]) 02:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::The evidence is that your still editing with an old account. I thought vanished editors were not allowed to continue editing using old acounts. If you believe reverts is sanctionable then you believe you should be sanctioned. ] (]) 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::''This is irrelevant.'' I changed accounts, and am free to edit with the new one; once I've tied up some loose ends, I'll leave. What is relevant: I reiterate that your block log shows chronic edit warring issues. --] (]) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. The accusation re my editing with my old account is ''false'', and QuackGuru has produced no evidence (because none exists). --] (]) 07:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::: 3RR was not violated, but the edit-warring must still stop. As a reminder, the list in question falls within the scope of ], which means that any uninvolved admin can place discretionary sanctions as needed. If the reverts continue, restrictions will probably be placed, so please, cut it out, and just stick to the talkpage, or try to make ''compromise'' edits, rather than just reverting back and forth. Remember, ] ''is completely ineffective'' in terms of making longterm changes to any article on Misplaced Pages. A much better way to proceed is to engage in discussion, and try to find a compromise, which will lead to much longer lasting changes which are of better use for our readers. Thanks, --]]] 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:Closing as no violation per Elonka --] (]) 04:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Nativity of Jesus}}
* User: {{userlinks|Doktorspin}}

<!-- 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: - after he first changed the dates to BCE/CE. The article was previously stable as using BC/AD, until someone added text using BCE/CE. After this was changed to conform, Doktorspin changed the whole article to BCE/CE without discussion, and has reverted to this version 9 times so far.

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

Note the edit summaries!
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
(rolling reverts, with the first & last 4 of the 6 both within 24 hrs. Warned after 4th revt.)

The same revert has been made a total 9 times since December 25th, lastly today . There has been extensive discussion with several editors at the talk page: ]

<!-- 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: , and by uninvolved admin ("another editor" was not me btw). After a lull of 3 days, he has reverted again today.

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->] (]) 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Protected by VirtualSteve''' - why a British/American solution won't work here (BC/AD in Christianity articles, BCE/CE everywhere else) is beyond me, but in any event the article has been protected so nothing else to do. --] (]) 04:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::You don't seem to be dealing with the issues involved. --] (]) 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

----

Johnbod's reverts:
#
#
#

Carl Bunderson reverts:
#
#
#
#
#

Quite a tag-team combo. Nice ], boys.

People who prefer to maintain errors by exploiting rules while overlooking aims and purposes of the Misplaced Pages institution are themselves violating the spirit of learning. So Johnbod has himself undone the dating system change three times, yet invokes the 3RR rule. Ironic.

He cannot provide a rational response to the three reasons provided why the change to BCE/CE is necessary and improves the quality of Misplaced Pages. Briefly,

#BCE/CE is the scholarly system;
#BCE/CE is not biased against other religious positions; and
#BCE/CE doesn't have an inbuilt error (Jesus being born in 4 before himself).

If one cannot deal logically with the argument for the change, one shouldn't engage in edit warring. It is merely abuse of the system. The notion of aiming for scholarly standards should be seen as improvement and should not be shunned.

To understand the scholarly situation one should consult indiscutably scholarly sources -- such as peer-group journals (eg JBL, BASOR, NEA, Novum Testamentum, Harvard Theological Review, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, JNES, etc.), recent Westminster John Knox, Eerdmans, Brill, OUP & CUP publications and works of the reputation of the Anchor Bible Dictionary to see what they do.

] simply and specifically says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." --] (]) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:You should see my comment in another report - the article was protected; both sides violated 3RR so complaining that the other party wasn't blocked is not a good idea. --] (]) 05:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::Sorry, I normally go about my business of trying to improve Wiki. I'm not up with all aspects of Wiki management. I merely thought perspective on the issue would be useful. I said nothing about the other party not being blocked. --] (]) 05:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:My 3 reverts were over a period of 2 weeks, so I have not reverted 3RR. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::Nice. But then you had Carl! Getting reason out of you two was impossible. --] (]) 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Portayla indeffed, 68.111.15.230 not blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|House of Plantagenet}}
* User: {{userlinks|Portayla}}
* User: {{userlinks|68.111.15.230}}

<!-- 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 -->

Portayla:

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

User: {{userlinks|68.111.15.230}}
* 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 -->

Word being restored by ] was originally placed in article by a sock-puppet of banned and blocked ], who has previously used sock-puppets to violate 3RR on this page. Pattern of edits and edit summaries suggest Portayla may be another Yorkshirian sock. ] (]) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
*Checkuser requested at ]. If Portayla is Yorkshirian, then reverting the edits of a banned user is an exemption from 3RR. '''Decision deferred''' until then. --] (]) 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Portayla''' indefblocked as a sock of a banned user. The IP is '''not blocked''' as reverting edits of a banned user are exempt from revert limitations. --] (]) 05:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked for other reasons) ==

* Page: {{article|Irgun}}
* User: {{userlinks|216.165.3.44}}

<!-- 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:

] (]) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:{{AN3|ab}} ] (]) 12:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked.) ==

* Page: {{article|Irgun}}
* User: {{userlinks|216.165.3.44}}

IP-User keeps trying to remove category tags established by consensus.

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:

The edit summaries are a good indication that this user knows Misplaced Pages policies well. Perhaps a case for Checkuser?
Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 08.01.2009 11:11</small>
:We know the user's IP, so what could checkuser do? <s>For some reason, my identical report above, which appears in page history and which can be edited by clicking the section link, does not display properly</s>. And the user has been blocked following of edit-warring on several articles, and abuse on my talk page ] (]) 11:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::A checkuser might ferret out what account the user originally used, but will probably be declined on the magic pixie dust ground. Anyway, {{AN3|ab}}. ] (]) 12:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

<!-- 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. -->

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

* Page: {{article|Albanians}}
* User: {{userlinks|Forsena}}

* Previous version reverted to:

#
#
#
* Diff of 3RR warning:

Long-time, extremely problematic POV editor, actions evidently indicate a Serb nationalist .There are enough proofs show this user is against ] and ] (Evidences: ). ] (]) 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

: Only 3R and has indicated (qualified) willingness on talk not to revert further. Will warn. Might I further remark how heart-warming it is to see you making full use of the talk page to discuss your reverts and diffuse the situation? Its so common for people to neglect to do this in the heat of passion. Or, put another way, consider youself warned too ] (]) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 55 hours) ==

* Page: {{article|Gaza beach explosion (2006)}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pedrito}}

<!-- 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: - edit summary is "Undid revision 262728176 by ליאור (talk) "
* 2nd revert: - edit summary is "Undid revision 262737445 by Wehwalt (talk) "
* 3rd revert: - same as #1. edit summary says "removed".
* 4th revert: - edist summary labels it a 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: user is very aware of 3RR, having filed a report today, and blocked for 3RR previously.

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
The edit summaries clearly indicate the editor knew he was reverting every time.

:{{admin note}} 55 hours. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:Note: Pedrito has asked to have his block reviewed. I'm not an admin, but if one is out there, could you please take a look at his request. Thanks! ] (]) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 12h each) ==

* Page: ]
* User: ]



* Previous version reverted to:



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




* Diff of 3RR warning:

I tried resolving it on the talk page, but all I got was unsourced opinion and personal attacks about my "agenda". --] (]) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

: You're both edit warring on a sensitive article. Take a brief break and let someone else deal with it for a bit. 12h each for edit warring ] (]) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: no vio / warned) ==

* Page: {{article|Arthur Kemp}}
* User: {{userlinks|Arthur Kemp}}

<!-- 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 was on another page, but is of the same nature, removal of a COI, or Autobiography template.

* 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 -->

All of Mr Kemps contributions have had to do with either his own article ], or another ], which mentions him. His edits seem to be somewhat self serving, with a serious potential for '''Confict Of Interest''', and poor potential for '''Neutral Point Of View'''. Mr Kemp also seems to have a serious issues with COI and Autobiography tags. ] (]) 22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

: Its per-page, so he has only 3R. Newbie, will warn ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Portuguese Empire}}
* User: {{userlinks|EuroHistoryTeacher}}

The "reverts" relate to the map in the infobox, which this editor is taking offence to, but for which I received positive feedback from other editors.

* 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:
* User acknowledges that they know about the rule
* 4th revert:

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning 6 Jan:
* Diff of 3RR warning 8 Jan:

The fourth revert came - sadly - after this exchange between us where it looked like we might make progress on the talk page, but instead he decided to revert a 4th time when he didn't like my response.

I should have kept a cool head this evening and not reverted myself, but I've been having constant issues with this editor ever since he joined the project a couple of months ago (see Wikiquette alert ). The latest example from this evening: after requesting he provide written sources for a map that he had drawn, I get this reply . As someone who cares a lot about making Misplaced Pages better (I took ] to FA status the other week) it pains me to deal with people who think they are above providing sources. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

::Ok let's make something clear before anything happens, User red Hat of Pat Ferrick has been insulting and trashing me since the first day i joined Misplaced Pages, he is always asking me (WHY ME everytime?!) to give him sources as if he wants to make my experience here in wikipedia miserable and i have to say he is succeeding, sometimes he is able to drive me away from articles because i dont like the way he directs at me , he is very disrespectful and rude towards me (but not limited to, many users have said the same)if im allow to say.
::Today he says i reverted 3 times and i did because he wants to put a map that has gained no popularity or acceptance on the Talk page of the Portuguese Empire, what he did was to go to the talk page of the British Empire and asked if his proposed map was "okay" but shouldn't he be disscussing that in the Portuguese Empire talk page? out of 3 times he's asked for acceptance in the Portuguese Empire talk page he has been denied the 3 times, other users want to keep the current map until his map is fixed (i say the same , there are way too many errors on his proposed map), so in short he wants to put a map before asking any of us, i dont think that's fair to us .--] (]) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that i don't provide any sources at all, in fact i do most of the time he asks me, but today i told him to go ask somebody else for sources, apparently to him, when he doesn't know something he believes whatever is not sourced is wrong, in normal cases i give him sources but this time im sure he can ask somebody else oh BTW I GAVE HIM SOURCES ABOUT THAT ALREADY, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE CAN'T ACCEPT THEM(!!), only the sources he likes he is able to accept, the source was very accurate but he just can't accept, he says because its too old but i seen him doing the same, using maps from OLD ATLASES! my source was from the 1930s or 1950s but his source for a fact in the British Empire article was from 1897!!! but i dont know why he can't accept MY sources... .--] (]) 02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

: 24h ] (]) 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected) ==

* Page: {{article|Clade}}
* User: {{userlinks|83.254.20.63}}

<!-- 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. -->

83.254.20.63, apparently the same individual as indef blocked user Consist ({{userlinks|Consist}}), is edit warring again. On ], ], ], and ]. Recent edits on ] are minor (, , ) but they're at the "heart" of the dispute. I'll also point out edits at the page ] (, , ). Was blocked yesterday for 24 hours (note: some of the diffs I refer to above are from before the block; as far as I know he isn't up to 3RR today) and has returned to it again. Has avowed () that he'll keep it up indefinitely. Some history: He's engaged in a long series of discussions on ] trying to get his point of view across. As near as I can understand it, he's on a crusade to rescue ] from the clutches of "]" which he insists is unscientific. His arguments vary. Generally people debate with him for a while, and get tired of it, at which point he states that they either don't accept or don't understand scientific rationalism (and usually that they don't understand some other thing, such as relativity) and either finds someone new to argue with, or goes back to edit warring. -- <span style="font-family:serif">]</span> 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:I have '''semi-protected''' four of the articles named above. Since {{userlinks|Consist}} is indef-blocked for disruptive editing, a longer block for the IP is deserved but will have little effect, because his IP changes all the time. If he edits more widely, please ask for semi-protection of additional articles at ]. When requesting protection you can link to the indef-block notice at ]. ] (]) 04:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: no vio) ==

* Page: {{article|Mudvayne}}
* User: {{userlinks|Ibaranoff24}}

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


User:Ibaranoff24 continues to remove sourced material from the ] page. See diffs. I have accepted changing the opening line to a more general term, and expressed willingness to discuss other matters on the talk page. Ibaranoff24 is leaving the published book source, but continues to remove an NME source and a Rolling Stone source, both published music magazines, and citations also from popmatters and Metal-Observer, not ideal sources, but accepted review sites due to meeting the criteria of having an editorial and writing staff, and as such acceptable in support of other sources. I apologise if this is not the correct place to put a complaint about reverts removing sourced material, and if so would appreciate a link to where it would be appropriate. ] (]) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:This is a content dispute and needs to be handled through some type of dispute resolution. This is the correct place to report edit warring, but this user has not violated 3RR. You need 4 reverts within a 24 hour period to violate 3RR, only two of these reverts are within 24 hours. There is no violation here. ] (]) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
: No vio. Try (all together now...) ] ] (]) 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

::The user has not violated the rule, but as the rule states, that isn't the only way to edit war. Top of this very page: "Remember, 3RR is a type of edit warring, and just because a user has not violated it does not mean they have not engaged in edit warring." Ultimately, he's simply removed sourced material repeatedly. I'm bringing it here because I've no doubt if I revert again I'll be the one getting done for edit warring. So if nothing is being done here, I want one of two things: a guarantee from an admin that if I continue simply to restore these sources I won't end up getting blocked for warring, OR a pointer to where precisely I should take this, as the user in question will not listen to me on the talk page, so what else can I do about this removal of sourced material? According to wiki rules it isn't vandalism, so please tell me '''precisely''' where to take this. ] (]) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::This usually means that you have to build your case a little more. Try a few more times to discuss the matter and if the reversals and the refusal to discuss persist you can reopen the case. ] (]) 11:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Blue Monday (date)}}
* User: {{userlinks|Honest Green}}

<!-- 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:

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

{{userlinks|82.109.35.114}}

{{userlinks|86.155.145.132}}

Repeatedly re-adding unsourced and biased content. --]] 11:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

: ''2009-01-09T11:58:45 EyeSerene (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Honest Green (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule on) (unblock | change block)'' ] (]) 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Czech Republic}}
* User: {{userlinks|78.30.163.113}}

<!-- 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 -->

] (]) 12:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

:'''24 hours'''. — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span>&nbsp;] 14:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] 3RR violation (indef) ==

Could you possible help out on Shakespeare authorship article. ] is agenda pushing his Oxfordian theology into the article and is now guilty of 3RR violation. Thanks very much for your time. ] (]) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

: Indef ] (]) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Asterisk}}
* User: {{userlinks|Home352}}
* User: {{userlinks|68.57.20.82}}
* User: {{userlinks|67.84.118.138}}

<!-- 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:
* 1st word change:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 2nd word change:
* 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 -->
These user(s) have been repeatedly vandalising the Asterisk page. I know for a fact that these user(s) are part of a group of trolls from another site that emphasize "proper" use of asterisks. I noticed they moved to Misplaced Pages and started reverting it. After my third revert, I of the three-revert rule. He then started reverting it from an IP. I reverted it again, but remembered the three revert rule and quickly changed it back.

I am not sure if he can be punished due to no specific IP/account reverting more than three times, but they are clearly the same person. -] (]) 20:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:Account indeffed, article s-protected. Blocking dynamic IPs isn't necessarily a fruitful endeavor, but if he/she trolls elsewhere, please let me know. --] (]) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. One question, if I accidentally violate the 3RR without realizing it, should I revert it back as I did in this situation? -] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:::In general yes, but in this case, when the edit is unquestionably vandalism/trolling, there is no need to. On an unrelated subject, it looks like your user name has been changed. Please log in using your new user name - it makes it incredibly confusing when you use the old one and they are so similar. --] (]) 21:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I'm on a computer that had "VoItorb" (with an i) still in the "Log in" screen. And I didn't know if it would be classified as ''blatant'' vandalism. -] (]) 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, that's true - other admins might look at it differently, so I can only speak for myself - I wouldn't have blocked you if you had reverted it 50 times - it was obvious enough to me that it was trolling/vandalism. --] (]) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 12h each) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:Television in Italy}}
* User: {{userlinks|ElSaxo}}

<!-- 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 -->
An old dispute dating back to late November. I requested a dispute resolution via ] . The user later wrote that he didn't actually care all that much about the template and agreed to leave the then-current revision as it was. Then he changed his mind.--] (]) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

: You both have 4R. Neither of you have made any attempt to discuss this on the talk page. 12h each ] (]) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No Vio) ==

*page ]
*User ]
Since early November, I have had a long running discussion with over 17 editors about note 1 of the article ]. ], an admin, has perisitently opposed the consensus version of this note. A very nice Wikipediean, ] has been trying to work out a compromise and has agreed, along with myself and other users to a form of the note that explains things more clearly and to the use of an author named ] as one of the POV's to include. Gimmetrow has eliminated my insertion of this agreed upon ] book three times.

*Version previous to reverts

*1st revert ,
*2nd revert ,
*3rd revert

*Diff to warning

He has done this without even coming to the talk page to explain or argue his point and does not seem to care that we, on the talk page, have discussed this. I am only making changes that were suggested in the compromise. . Those opposing the consensus version are Gimmetrow and two new accounts with very little activity except the RCC talk page. and I suspect they are sockpuppets of someone, no I don't suspect Gimmetrow but honestly I don't know now. ] <sup> ]</sup> 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:update: he has come to the talk page after I posted this. However his tone is not conducive to working toward a compromise which he seems adamant against considering his persistent opposition to consensus including this present set of reverts. ] <sup> ]</sup> 05:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
{{AN3|nv}} The above list only shows three reverts. Four reverts are needed to break the ] rule. It seems possible that you could ask for advice at ] as to whether the Madrid source is reliable. The other side has been claiming that the Madrid source is not academic and is not an official church document. From a quick look, it is not obvious to me that the Talk page has reached a clear verdict on this matter. You might be able to find ways of bringing in outside opinions. ] (]) 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:I will echo the above, might I recommend ] and ]? ] <sup>]</sup> 06:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you I contacted ]. The opposing side has listed the matter at RFC twice already and the article was at FAC which is why we had so many editors chiming in on the matter with consensus in agreement over the use of sources and text that Gimmetrow disputes. He is abusing his power and not respecting either consensus or ]. ] <sup> ]</sup> 07:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|No-kill shelter}}
* User: {{userlinks|Dodo_bird}}

<!-- 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:

This is the second time in the past few weeks that this editor has reverted and changed text 3 or more times without explanation in the edit summaries while ignoring requests to discuss. Editor previously redirected his talk page to avoid being able to send him a message. He deletes any talk on his talk page almost immediately. ] (]) 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] <sup>]</sup> 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 24/31h) ==

* Page: {{article|Template:Television in Italy}}
* User: {{userlinks|ElSaxo}}

<!-- 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:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
Same as . Apparently, the 12-hour block wasn't of much use for either side, the reverting spree restarted as soon as it expired, albeit this time I did try to discuss the question, but, .--] (]) 10:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

: So, you've both gone back to edit warring straight off your blocks, so you're both blocked again, but for longer this time. You've made a token effort to talk (though I detected no real signs of any compromise) so you get a very slightly shorter block in recognition ] (]) 12:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] ==

* Page: {{article|Srinivasa Ramanujan }}
* User: {{userlinks|91.130.91.84}}

<!-- 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:

<!-- 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 -->
* Will not discuss civilly or respond to evidence that his idiosyncratic edits are improper. Appears to be POV-pushing a separatist agenda. ]
* Has started edit-warring at ], , without explaining deletions.


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

==Discrimination against atheists ==

* Page: {{article|Discrimination against atheists}}

Ok, we really need to discuss what the correct attitude concerning this controversy is. I would agree that there are some issues with the article, but those aren't wrote than similar ones at several other articles from the ]. Other editors were bold enough to remove several sections of the article because they didn't show sufficiently that what was discussed in that section was actually discriminating. Well, I though, if they are so bold to do this, then I may be so bold to simply move the whole thing to '''Situation of atheists''. I was reverted instantly, and asked to discuss controversial edits first. Well, other editors didn't do that when they removed the sections, so why should it? It didn't even get the time to justify the move on the talk page, and actually, I had suggested it before... ] (]) 13:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
: This appears to be a ] nomination, which this board is clearly not designed to deal with. Discussion on the article talk page should be attempted first, which the nominator has stated they haven't tried. ] <small>]</small> 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Syracuse University}}
* User: {{userlinks|Orangemarlin}}


<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
I am an uninvolved editor that came across this editor at a recent WQA. This editor has breached 3RR multiple times on this article, and an attempt to discuss this on the users Talk page was met with an accusation of .

*6:40 7th
*16:33 7th
*18:29 7th
*18:36 7th
*19:05 7th
*01:38 8th
*04:05 8th
*16:37 8th
*21:55 8th

<!-- 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 -->
: I count only 3 reverts in those diffs, which span a period of over 24 hours, and no edits were made after the very rude warning which involved personal attacks. I suggest the nominator be warned for civility and not to abuse the 3RRN. ] <small>]</small> 14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::::You are correct about the diffs spanning more than 24 hours - this was to show the amount of reverting that this editor has done on this article, but if you count them up, you will see that the first 7 reverts are within 24 hours. All of these diffs are reverts (please read the definition of what constitutes a revert). Finally, please substantiate your accusation of "very rude warning which involved personal attacks" or withdraw the remark which in itself is a breach of ]. I have included the diff above for the warning, I leave it for other editors to draw their own conclusions on behaviour standards here. --] (]) 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::I guess once was accused of being a , I should expect this type of attack. What the editor fails to notice is that the vandalizing editor attempted to put in material against consensus, put in "joke" edits, and couldn't spell. Moreover, another admin blocked the editor for several violations of whatever. This is laughable. Completely laughable. Reverting a vandal is completely acceptable. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 14:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawn - it appears that this case was already reported and the decision was not to block Orangemarlin . Apologies to Orangemarlin, although it would have been simpler all round if he had merely pointed this out. --] (]) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:23, 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:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Chance997 (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:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

    Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "a ] containing an ] alien ]" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words "red-striped black hedgehog" at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the fictional hedgehog in question). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, User:Carlinal and User:Barry Wom, citing MOS:OVERLINK as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at Sonic the Hedgehog 2 to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. Barry Wom (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:ToadGuy101 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: 2024 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: ToadGuy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267757647 by CipherRephic (talk)"
    2. 14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267751974 by John (talk)Stop whining about him"
    3. 14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267747738 by Czello (talk)"
    4. 13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2024 United Kingdom general election."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

    Comments:

    User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. Belbury (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Mindxeraser reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)

    Page: 1000mods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mindxeraser (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:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 reported by User:DandelionAndBurdock (Result: /64 blocked two weeks)

    Page: Fernanda Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
    2. 20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    3. 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    4. 20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."
    5. 20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored old version."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Blocked – for a period of two weeks The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Csknp reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Page already protected)

    Page: Template:Twenty20 competitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    2. 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
    2. 01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio

    Comments: This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. Vestrian24Bio 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... Vestrian24Bio 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    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)

    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: )

    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: 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)

    Categories: