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 20:35, 12 January 2009 editRussavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Biophys reported by Russavia (Result: no vio): rsp← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,733 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
<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: /21 blocked for three years) ==
=Reports=
:Please place new reports {{highlight|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can the ] for it.


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


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* Page: {{article|Albanians}}
* User: {{userlinks|Forsena}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
#
#
#


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)
:{{AN3|b|48 hours}} Edit warring, not 3RR. Though this complaint was made two days ago, the edit warring is still going on. Forsena systematically changes the terms used to refer to Kosovo by other editors, paying no attention to existing consensus. From one of today's edit summaries, ''Kosovo is NOT A COUNTRY and it will never be. Stop promoting idiotism in this article!'' When this user returns from this block, he should take note of from Balkan-related articles and Talk pages that was enacted over at ] on 10 January. ] (]) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==


* Page: {{article|Spontaneous generation}}
* User: {{userlinks|Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
<!-- 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. -->
:{{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) ==
* Previous version reverted to:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


* 1st revert: '''Previous version reverted to:'''
* 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 -->
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:


<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
Further signs of non-collaboative behavior:
: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)


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


<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 />
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-->


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
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) :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)
::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
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.
] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added at 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:'''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)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: 55 hours) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
* Page: {{article|Gaza beach explosion (2006)}}
* User: {{userlinks|Pedrito}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{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:'''
* Previous version reverted to:
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* 1st revert: - edit summary is "Undid revision 262728176 by ליאור (talk) "
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* 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.


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
<!-- 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 -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
#
The edit summaries clearly indicate the editor knew he was reverting every time.
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:{{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)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==


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


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


: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)
* Previous version reverted to:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* User acknowledges that they know about the rule
* 4th revert:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning 6 Jan:
* Diff of 3RR warning 8 Jan:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
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.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
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)
# {{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:'''
::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.
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
::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)
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
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)
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
: 24h ] (]) 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
* Page: {{article|Mudvayne}}
* User: {{userlinks|Ibaranoff24}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


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




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


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
::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)
::::Okay, thanks Dr. K. I'll continue on the talk page and try to end it, if Ibaranoff persists I'll bring it back here. ] (]) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::It was my pleasure Prophaniti. I've been in a few situations like this one myself. It just takes a bit of patience. Take care. ] <small>]</small> 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Oh, and I just noticed Landon helping restore the material. Thanks Landon, much appreciated. ] (]) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) ==


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* Page: {{article|Blue Monday (date)}}
* User: {{userlinks|Honest Green}}


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.
<!-- 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. -->


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
* Previous version reverted to:


There are obvious weasel words and I am very much calling into question the balancing of the writing used and the user can't just revert and raise protection level. Proper procedure is to discuss via talk page. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
Also using:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
{{userlinks|82.109.35.114}}


{{userlinks|86.155.145.132}} '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}


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


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* Page: {{article|Czech Republic}}
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
* User: {{userlinks|78.30.163.113}}


<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. -->


:'''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)
* Previous version reverted to:


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


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
<!-- 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|104.173.25.23}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] (]) 12:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
:'''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) ==
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''


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)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
: Indef ] (]) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::To clarify, ] was indef blocked, not Smatprt. ] (]) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
* Page: {{article|Asterisk}}
* User: {{userlinks|Home352}}
* User: {{userlinks|68.57.20.82}}
* User: {{userlinks|67.84.118.138}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- 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. -->


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
* 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:'''
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1268346980|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
* 1st word change:
# {{diff2|1268346280|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1268345229|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 3rd revert:
* 2nd word change:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- 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:


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result: 12h each) ==


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* Page: {{article|Template:Television in Italy}}
* User: {{userlinks|ElSaxo}}


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 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. -->
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That is because {{u|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{u|Shecose}}, {{tqq|to satisfy his personal ego}} (above and in ] too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ] (]) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
* Previous version reverted to:


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
* 1st revert:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ger2024}}
* 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 -->
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"


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


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
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)
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
: 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)
# "Lady Saso: New Section"
== ] reported by ] (Result: No Vio) ==
# "Lady Saso: Reply"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*page ]
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
*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.


Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
*Version previous to reverts


In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
*1st revert ,
*2nd revert ,
*3rd revert


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


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


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


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

* 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 (result: no vio) ==

* 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)

::It wasn't me who started to make controversial edits without justification. Since this simply happens again and again, I don't see a reason any more to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Find someone else to clean up your junk. ] (]) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to at least pretend there is edit warring, and maybe trouble yyourself to present a diff or two, if you want anyone to take a report seriously. This is not ] ] (]) 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:I'm an involved editor, but I will point out that there is a huge amount of discussion on the talk page (it takes up most of the talk page) about OR and synthesis which led up to the removal of what was seen to be OR. The discussion was the 'justification' that Zara1709 doesn't seem to think took place. ] (]) 19:30, 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)
:I don't have time for this crap. I expect an editor to do his own due-diligence before making these types of accusations. I do apologize for calling you a sock, since you obviously are not after my own due diligence. However, I was harassed by two meatpuppets on the same topic. It was suspicious go through this again. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Arthur_Kemp}}
* User: {{userlinks|Arthur_Kemp}}

* Previous version reverted to:

# <small>(no edit summary)</small>
# <small>(no edit summary)</small>
# <small>(no edit summary)</small>
# <small>(no edit summary)</small>
# <small>(no edit summary)</small>

* Diff of warning: ]
* Diff of 3RR warning: ]

'''Note:''' Several more reverts have been made while preparing this report. There are also obvious ] issues. ] <small>]</small> 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

: All I have asked for is a chance to add a refutation to a pack of lies put up about me. This is only fair, is it not?
I see that you yourself have now agreed to allow me to refute the allegations. So why, if I may ask, if you have now agreed to put it in, did you object so strongly to me putting them in the first time around? Anyway, as long as it stays like that, I am satisfied. ] (]) 17:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:: This users disruptive editwarring is ongoing, on a page he should not be editing anyway. He is far beyond the 4R allowed in just a few hours, after many warnings and commenting above. ] <small>]</small> 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:31 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;] 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Roof knocking}}
* User: {{userlinks|Cerejota}}

<!-- 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:

I don't like ratting other editors out to noticeboards. However, I really don't know what to do. I would not do this if not the fact that the templates are nonsense and disruptive. --'']] ]'' 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} Gosh, talk about ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for the quick unblock. Brewcrewer is misrepresenting his behavior and actions. I am and endless river of good faith. But lesson learned: AGF goes only so far.--] (]) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

*] violation on
{{Article|Csangos}}. {{3RRV|Baxter9}}: Time reported: 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

# <small>(edit summary: "rv "some webpage" LOL! Check it: it is the website of the Organization for the European Minorities.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "rv. please dont remove reliable referenced material")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "added other sources (Registered foundations)")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Please add your reasons before you remove referenced material from tha article.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "LOL! Sure "not insufficiently" 2 reliable sources were removed by the user")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "rv vandalism. Sources are reliable.")</small>

: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;] 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: Not blocked) ==

* Page: {{article|New York Islanders}}
* User: {{userlinks|Croctotheface}}

<!-- 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 -->

Hi folks.

You're not going to believe what this user does. I've been doing a lot of work on disambiguation, redirection and date unlinking, whenever I've come across it. Well, this user writes to me, and asks me to stop, referring to ]. So I read it, and find that, well, ok, there might be a point - if correcting a (one) redirect were the only thing I was doing. Most of the time I make dozens of changes, as I take the trouble of fixing every flaw I find while I'm on the page (typos, camel-case, inconsistent date formats, etc).

Ok, only correcting redirects might not be very helpful. But '''then''' what does he do? He '''''reverts''''' my "unneccessary" change, re-inserting redirects instead if direct links, re-links dates, "re-ambiguates" links, or whatever changes I've made! (Told you you wouldn't believe it, didn't I?)

If my changes were unnecessary, '''''then what are his'''''? I can't even begin to describe how stupid I think that is: going back to what both he and I agree on is a worse version than that which I created. He's motives for doing this is that he wants to discourage me from continuing to do my work. In addition to violating the 3RR rule (in fact he has reverted me four times), I think ] and ] come into play.

He's at least acting in good faith, I can give him that.

] (]) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' There is quite a bit of discussion taking place, mostly at ] but Croctotheface is continuing to revert even though the most relevant discussion seems to be leaning against his view. It is accepted that the articles on the hockey players will use the version of their name *with* diacritics. Introducing a piped link to each player's name, though it doesn't appear logical to me personally, seems to be the version that the ] editors are in favor of. Some of those joining in the discussion have pointed out that this compromise was originally adopted within ] to put a stop to *revert wars*. So here we have Croctotheface engaging in a revert war. Something isn't right. ] (]) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

:: I'm generally loathe to comment on things like this, as the record should speak for itself, but much in the above comment is just false. I did not "continue to revert even though the most relevant discussion seemed to be going against my view." My last edit to the main article occurred BEFORE I posted on the talk page, and all talk page discussion occurred after that comment. I see no evidence that the other editors are in favor of introducing piped links, just that they don't see the point in reverting them. Djsasso and RGTraynor take that position. GoodDay agrees with me that we should use redirects. ] (]) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Also, to further explain the record, when Djsasso wrote, "''And that is not an ok situation as needless edit warring between versions is what our compromise was trying to stop. While this isn't an edit war between diacritics and not diacritics, its still an edit war. Ironically over the same links but for a different reason.''" That comment does not refer to a "compromise" regarding using piped links. The compromise is about using diacritics for player names in certain articles and not using them in others. The past edit warring he refers to was over whether to display or not to display the diacritics. This edit war is over R2D, nothing more. ] (]) 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

: And since I'm here already, I may as well point out that of the four linked reversions above, two occurred four days ago. Additionally, LaRan reverted each of the reversions he linked above, as the page history shows. ] (]) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This page isn't dispute resolution, but if I may attempt to resolve the dispute, LaRan is seeking to link to <nowiki>]</nowiki>, which is unquestionably wrong under R2D. If that's the direction that WP:HOCKEY is going, then WP:HOCKEY is wrong. This only causes maintenance annoyances down the line. For example, suppose that some time down the line, it is discovered that the wrong a is being used and it should be a different a. If you directly link to the correct title, then links that need to be updated can easily be found with whatlinkshere. But if you pipe the link, then it's much more difficult to find the link. I would think using the guy's actual name with no piping - <nowiki>]</nowiki> would be correct, but whether you use the Americanized spelling or the correct spelling, piping it is a bad idea. In any event, there's no threat of disruption here and blocking would be purely punitive, so '''not blocked'''. --] (]) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{la|Republika Srpska}}
* User: {{userlinks|67.169.4.255}}

User 67.169.4.255 broke 3 revert rule on this page
--] <small>(])</small> 01:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
::TO ADMIN: I invite you to please visit Republika Srpska page history to see who started reverting things. While undoing my edit, and then complaining about me the user Ceha is a constant provocator on the RS page, doing nothing but decunstructive harm. While he complains about 3RR he had the decency to remove additional links which I have added to this page. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::We need some professional help on this page. People like user Direktor have in their profile a wikibox that openly says that they DO NOT SUPPORT HE RIGHT OF R.S. TO EXIST... so they are preemptively biased against the page that they are edited. We need serious help and need to stop this propaganda and nationalism that these people are trying to add here. (] (]) 02:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
::::Yes we need help. User 67.169.4.255 broke 3RR and User Laz17 is guilty of incivility. User Laz17 was also warn for serbian bias. If both users have something constructive to say about the map or improve it in any way, they are welcomed. Hower they do need (as everbody else) to stick to wikipedia rules. --] <small>(])</small> 02:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I already told you of your biggest fraud on the map, and it was so big that you changed it at once - it was not like your bosnia map where you never changed anything until and insisted it was okay until it got deleted. You cite the ICTY as the map data source... shit son, then why do you misname every detention camp center as concentration camp? You did not even look at what the ICTY had to say, you designed the map on purpose to spread your nationalistic agenda. Your agenda has been seen nonstop, regarding your maps. We are in the process of cleaning out your 1991 ethnic maps because they are fraudulent. The point is that you are of anti-serbian biase. I am not of any biase that you accuse me of. I may react bad to bad things, but you are the one that is causing it. (] (]) 02:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)).
::::::No. You are responsible for uncivic behavior and user 67.169.4.255 for break of 3RR. Do I need to qoute the warnings where you were warned or your own words?
::::::As for detention/concentration map issue, have you read map log? Let me repeat it for you; '' Human rights watch declered them as concentration ones, for example | ''. Moreover this is changed. Map is correct.
::::::For we issue, I did not know that you are a ''plurality''. Sorry your higness. Every document which I made '''is''' sorced. If anybody can show me that I'm wrong or that I'm using wrong data I'll correct it. That's called cooperation. Nationalistic yelling and your behavior is not cooperative. If you read anything of wikipedia's policies you would know that. --] <small>(])</small> 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Ridiculous. Ceha who is obviosuly biased toward RS has decency to say that we are biased toward RS (since we are serbs), and yet he's the one who goes tarnishing RS page everyday. It seems that imrpoving things calls for 3RR while obviosuly being biased against is great. If you feel like you should post any RS criticism do it under Fed. Yell and complain all you want over there.] (]) 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::LAZ is there a way to talk to mods and maybe lock the site until provocators disperse.] (]) 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} 3RR violation. It is not up to admins to decide whether the contested map belongs in the article or not. It would be good if the editors who favor including the map would spell out on the article Talk page exactly where the data came from. (The map image file itself has no link to a source; it just says 'ICTY'.). ] (]) 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
::Added some internet links and sources on . Going to update (spread) list of detention camps when I get the time... --] <small>(])</small> 06:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: ]
* Users: ] and ].

The two have started an edit war about, out of the most silliest of things, Jonah Falcon's penis size. JAF1970, claims to be Jonah Falcon and thus keeps reverting the edits. Which Bomberdude'02 counteract's with "you don't want to degrade yourself". Please break this up before the page is fully protected. ] (]) 01:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

: ] seems to be dealing with this ] (]) 12:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Max Hardcore}}
* User: {{userlinks|Eminencefront}}

<!-- 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 -->
The registered user and the IP are indeed the same user, as the registered user uses their IP talk page for discussion. User has been warned (has warned me, apparently), and will not use the discussion page of the article. Thanks. <sup><small>]</small></sup><sub><small> ]</small></sub> 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:Please note that Eminence Front is now at 4RR tonight, even without the IP. I've left him a comment below as well.

== ] reported by ] (Result: EF blocked 24 hrs) ==

* Page: {{article|Max Hardcore}}
* User: {{userlinks|Law}}

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

* Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Max_Hardcore&diff=263306350&oldid=261386371
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

* 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Max_Hardcore&diff=261389309&oldid=261386371
* 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Max_Hardcore&diff=263170103&oldid=263134495* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Max_Hardcore&diff=263285759&oldid=263246670

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

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Law

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) -->
I am linking an adult fan site for Max, being an adult site it requires a logging for Google (email address for age verification) user Law is
removing said site saying it does not have anything "bettering" the article, he points to a rule about avoiding lo in pages, this rule is clearly intended for news paper and such article amendments, not for fan sites that are specific to the article as noted in:

What should be linked Misplaced Pages articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.--] (]) 03:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:EF, I've also reverted you, fan sites don't belong as per ]. I agree with Law that this site falls under that category. In any case, it's not worth edit warring over. ] (]) 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
::Please note that EF has now reverted my opinion without discussion, and is at 4RR today. ] (]) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

* Obvious: EF violated EL as well as 3RR. Blocked for 24 hours. ]] 04:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|California Musical Theatre}}
* User: {{userlinks|Amadscientist}}

<!-- 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:

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

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
] was recently involved in a controversy, the details of which constitute about a quarter of the article's total length. Editor persistently removes all reference to those events from the lead, apparently in a desire to protect the theatre's reputation. I understand the wikipedia guidelines on leads to say that they should summarise the important elements of the article; as a section constituting such a large proportion, it is clearly important enough to summarise. My own non-investment in the theatre's reputation--good or ill--is detailed on the talk (I live on another continent for a start). ] (]) 04:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

:{{admin note}} Indeed a violation (there were four reverts), but I feel that page protection is a better course here. Open to a second opinion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

::I'm not sure why. AMS clearly violated 3RR, the others didn't. Blocking AMS rather than protection seems more natural. Furthermore AMS has been distinctly incivil (''Consensus is required. Don't waste my time or my effort and don't be an ass'') and appears to be appealling to a non-existence consensus ] (]) 12:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't see the fourth revert sir. The rule is three reverts in a 24 hour period. Dionysis was very biligerent and uncivil as well. There was no consensus for the addition of the text and he was just as wrong for not waiting for a consensus to be formed. ANd no one thinks his calling me a vandal over reverts wasn't incivil? This doesn not make sense to me at all and I request someone please point out the four reverts.--] (]) 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

:::William, you are correct, a block would have been a better choice here than protection. Not sure what I was seeing late last night, but Amadscientist's behavior was more questionable than I realized. However, given my initial actions here, and the fact that Amadscientist has at least attempted to work things out with Dionysis by means of a comment on his talk page since the page protection, I've left a note asking Amadscientist to make some promises if this block is to be waived. If other administrators agree, that would be my suggestion. (Note: here is the fourth revert: .) ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::::This must be a matter of my not understanding dates as the 4th revert you just linked is from the 9th not the 11th. I will admit I seem not to understand any of this. I request simply inblocking the page and blocking me. I may not understand any of this, but i would rather the page be open and I be blocked.--] (]) 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

:{{AN3|b|24 hours}} My offer was declined by Amadscientist, and the 3RR violation stands. 24 hour block is appropriate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:::'''Comment.''' Since Amad said he did not understand the complaint (above), here are the four reverts that I noticed (all times UTC):
::::03:03, January 11, 2009 'Undid..'
::::02:23, January 11, 2009 'Undid..'
::::00:40, January 11, 2009 'Reverting..'
::::20:01, January 10, 2009 'Undid..'
:::Since the four reverts are within a 24-hour period, they do break ]. ] (]) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)}}
* User: {{userlinks|Reidlos}}

<!-- 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 -->

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

: 24h ] (]) 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|User_talk:WhatamIdoing}}
* User: {{userlinks|Posturewriter}}

<!-- 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: Note that this involves partial reversions, plus additional comments: the edit war is over his determination to restore a subsection head that attacks me.

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

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

I frankly didn't think that Misplaced Pages's rules said that editors had to wait for repeated personal attacks to rise to the level of 3RR, but that seemed to be the drift of the (non-admin) comments at ANI. I've removed this particular one from my user talk page four times in less than 24 hours. Attacking me is the only thing this editor has done during this time. I would like someone to block this user before we make it a fifth, sixth, or seventh time. Thanks, ] (]) 17:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

: Warned ] (]) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

*Page: {{article|Military operations conducted by the Israel Defense Forces}}
*User: {{user|81.23.54.165}}
*Diffs:
**
**
**
**
**
**
*Notes: User was with {{tl|uw-3rr}}.

-- ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

:24h ] (]) 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Duffy (singer)}}
* User: {{userlinks|Duncan John Murray}}

<!-- 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: -->
The page has now been protected, so I haven't had chance to 3RR warn this user. However, here are my two warnings about adding unsourced information:
* 1st warning:
* 2nd warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
This user has been warned before (back in December) about the addition of unsourced information to other pages. Despite this, they have ignored all warnings and refuse to discuss their edits. ~~ </span>]]<sup><nowiki>]&nbsp;-&nbsp;]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 09:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

: ''2009-01-11T23:12:24 Spartaz (Talk | contribs | block) m (45,519 bytes) (Protected Duffy (singer): Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)) (expires 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)))) (rollback | undo)'', which is fortunate for you, otherwise you'd be blocked. ''The page has now been protected, so I haven't had chance to 3RR warn this user'' - you do realise this is twaddle, don't you? If you don't, I'll be happy to explain ] (]) 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

::I am quite confused by your reply. Not sure whether you are responding to me or to Duncan John Murray... (except for the 3RR warning bit, which is obviously aimed at me). ~~ </span>]]<sup><nowiki>]&nbsp;-&nbsp;]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 16:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

::: I'm talking to you, of course ] (]) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

:::: Oh. I don't quite understand why I would have been blocked? I was reverting the addition of badly sourced material. ~~ </span>]]<sup><nowiki>]&nbsp;-&nbsp;]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Web brigades}}
* User: {{userlinks|Biophys}}

<!-- 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 -->

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

This is a somewhat volatile article, with its scope under much contention, and what material should and shouldn't be included. There are quite a few editors, as evidenced by the talk page, who believe that Biophys is assuming ] of the article and ] to give this conspiracy theory more credence. It would appear that Biophys is intent on having only his version of the article without addressing concerns that other editors have. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

*My edits after the revert by Martintg (3rd diff by Russavia) do not represent a revert/edit warring. To the contrary, I removed materials , suggested to be irrelevant by Russavia . These removed materials were previously inserted by me, not by other users, as one can see from edit history. I would be happy to self-revert, but my ''new'' version has been already reverted by other users. There is a discussion at this article talk page. If recommended, I can stop editing this article for a couple of days. Thanks,] (]) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
**Please also note this: .] (]) 16:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
***The fact that other editors have also reverted your changes demonstrates that there is much contention as to materials in the article, and the article history demonstrates that you are asserting ownership of the article. And yes, I put a message on both Ellol and Offliner talk page, as they have both been involved in discussions on the talk page, and it was a notice advising them of the re-inclusion of your preferred text. And I would also ask that admins look at , in which Biophys continues with his insinuations that others (this time me) are members of Russian government propaganda teams. This is in violation of ] (of which Biophys is aware); accusing people of being Russian government propaganda agents create battleground conditions. --]
<sup>]</sup> 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
***Just one other thing, one will notice that none of the two editors who I contacted have done any reverting, they have instead gone to the talk page, as I suggested, and are continuing discussion there. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is the first revert a revert to the version-reverted-to. It doesn't look like it to me ] (]) 17:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:] --] <sup>]</sup> 17:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:: No, shan't, you explain ] (]) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Explain what William? Read the talk page of the article concerned to see that there is absolutely no consensus for the re-insertion of information by Biophys. He knows its contentious, and yet he does it anyway?! --] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
*This 3RR report is malformed as there was no 3RR warning given and hence no warning diff supplied. Note that Russavia has been blocked for for harassing Biophys in the past. This report appears to be following a similar pattern. ] (]) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Without prejudice to the result, you are wrong: B has been blocked for 3RR before and needs no warning ] (]) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Martintg, that is so far in the past it is not funny. If you wanna bring that up, then perhaps your stalking of myself needs to be brought up also, yes? It could also be said that your revert of myself has been done as a team situation, using the "there is no consensus" reason, when if you would have cared to look at the talk page, there is a heap of objections to the revisions which Biophys has done in the past on this particular article. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No vio: don't see why first-revert is a revert, nor the third ] (]) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:Then can one explain how all of the editors who have never expressed an opinion on the article talk page before, are now rushing in to revert and re-include information into the article. Wait for it, the Arbcom is now a ]....yes, you got it, the Arbcom is now a RS for WP purposes. Check if for yourselves, and one can clearly see there is a shitload of ] editing on this article. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
:Additionlly William, the third is a revert. I was BLOCKED for 48 hours, remember, and the basis of some of that is that I actually did legitimate copyediting. I asked, and never got the decency of a response, as to why there is one rule for one, and another rule for others (on that occasion Biophys also was clearly guilty of breaching 3RR, but got off). I don't expect much of a response now either, mind you. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

* Page: {{article|Joseon Dynasty}}
* User: {{userlinks|ADKTE}}

* Previous version reverted to:

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

* Diff of 3RR warning:
*Although the editor in question registered his account on January 10th 2009, s/he knows rules quite well, and even guided me how properly to file AFD. Aside from the matter, s/he has never tried to gain a consensus on his removal of massive contents, but just insists that her/his edits without discussion or consensus is "improving" the article, and anyone who objects to her/his edits are vandalism". The fact that the closing admin of the AFD on ] which ADKTE created to sit the article of ], suggested us to discuss for merging as closing AfD, does not mean that s/he get a permission to revert more than 3 times in a period of 24 hours and disregards "consensus". When I spot ADKTE's massive removals and 3RR violation, I did not report her/him here from good faith. Moreover, when he violated 3RR ''again'' right after the AFD's closing, I also did not reported ADKTE in hope that s/he comes to discuss the thing, but ADKTE just kept reverting the article. In spite of the fact that more than two editors are against his removal and relocation, he reverted today just a few minute after his last revert. This practice constitutes gaming the system. Therefore his repeated 3RR violations should not be condoned further.--] 18:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

: No vio. This isn't 3RR. You need to talk coherently on the talk page and drop the accusations of newbie-hood and sockpuppetry. OTOH, A should stop relying on "the result was keep". The result was "make redirect" which means keeping the content on the JD page. Explain this carefully and politely on the talk page ] (]) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::I do not understand as to why the more than 3 reverts by him within 24 hours are not 3RR violation. As for civility, he first accused me of doing "vandalism" as me restoring his deleted contents without a consensus. He even quoted various policies on his first day, so in my experience, I can not think that this user in question is okay to just skip the rule with the excuse of him being a newbie. Besides, I've explained to him many times (which were all deleted from his talk page) that the article should remain as it was until he gets a consensus. Since my attempts to continue a discussion have failed, perhaps you can instruct him? --] 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102408 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    2. 04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102323 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    3. 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268102267 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
    4. 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268101988 by MrOllie (talk)"
    5. 04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268074482 by MrOllie (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. (31 December 2024)
    2. (6 January 2024)
    3. (7 January 2025)
    4. (8 January 2025)

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


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

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

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

    I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--BubbleBabis (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating hoaxes, adding off-topic information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#User BubbleBabis. Aneirinn (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Cambial Yellowing (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"
    2. 18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267996553 by Hipal (talk) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
    3. 17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267995628 by Hipal (talk)"
    4. 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hipal (talk) to last revision by Sokoreq"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Westville Boys' High School."
    2. 11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Westville Boys' High School."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    They have been warned before about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
    User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025
    """
    Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    They're up to it again NotQualified (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    """ NotQualified (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024 (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    "NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
    Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of Reform UK abuse scandal, amongst other things. James McMurdock#Assault conviction
    Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
    "I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE."
    Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
    "There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example Talk:Grooming_gang_moral_panic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1#Requested_move_3_September_2024"
    Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
    "I "tried to delete me reporting them""
    I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
    "I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
    3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with NotQualified (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    • No violation. This report is a mess. Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment NotQualified (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      @NotQualified: Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
      1. I add templates to an article with faults
      2. The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
      3. I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
      4. They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
      5. I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
      6. Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
      7. I notify the user
      8. I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
      9. Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
      10. You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
      I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis NotQualified (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
      They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
      That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
      I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
      I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. NotQualified (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Genetic influence"
    2. 23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
    3. 23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268251743 by MrOllie (talk)"
    4. 21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Vandalizing */"

    Comments:

    Comment: I tried had a discussion with the IP editor on their talk page about misunderstandings on the definition on 'environment' which they seemed to come around on. But then they started adding in race science in other articles and edit warring there too. Blatant troll WP:NOTHERE. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
    And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at Genome-wide association study, not one as you claim. MrOllie (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. MrOllie (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article 'heritability of IQ' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws 80.200.232.89 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268310547 by C.Fred (talk) Already took it to talk"
    2. 04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268310269 by PEPSI697 (talk)"
    3. 04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268309093 by Tenebre.Rosso.Sangue995320 (talk)"
    4. 04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268308251 by Galaxybeing (talk) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
    5. 04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268080514 by Flat Out (talk) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268346390 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
    2. 08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268345471 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
    3. 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268344773 by CNMall41 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:00 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
    2. 04:26 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
    3. 04:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
    4. 04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
    5. 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 04:43 9 January 2025 (UTC): "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
    2. 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 04:36 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: New Section"
    2. 05:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Lady Saso: Reply"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Categories: