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

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

Revision as of 12:25, 23 June 2009 editSlatersteven (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers73,428 edits →User:Slatersteven reported by User:Parrot of Doom (Result: more info)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:23, 9 January 2025 edit undoShecose (talk \| contribs)56 edits →User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: )
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}
	]		<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~101~~		\|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. -->
	{{Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}
	__TOC__

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->
	:Please place new reports {{highlight\|at the '''BOTTOM'''}}. If you do not see your report, you can the ] for it.

	<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (]) (Result: 24h) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Chance997}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Bombing of Darwin}}. {{3RRV\|RutgerH}}: Time reported: 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* Revert comparison: .
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	# () <small>(edit summary: "Signficance in context")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "] revision 297033896 by ] (])")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "] revision 297114776 by ] (]) You don't own this article")</small>
	# () <small>(edit summary: "] revision 297118847 by ] (])Get a consensus for revert or take action as suggested")</small>

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	The user refuses to keep the by adding what they want and refuse to stop reverting and keep discussing. The user is also making threats in a tempt to scare me.

			Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	—] (]) 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} by ]. ] (]) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
	::*In the above discussion, Bidgee complained: ''The user is also making threats in a tempt to scare me''. I don't consider Rutger's comment to Bidgee to be any kind of a threat: ''Stop being petty and don't think administrators won't take the time to properly review the situation before taking action.'' (I am commenting here because I received an email on this subject). ] (]) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

			I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	* Page: {{la\|Lily Sparkletoon}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Ttonyb1}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
	<!-- 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\|ToadGuy101}}
	* User keeps asking for the page to be deleted as the page is being designed

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* 1st revert: Keeps deleting content relating to lily. Deletes sections as they are written
			# {{diff2\|1267771905\|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	* 2nd revert: same thing
			# {{diff2\|1267757010\|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
	* 3rd revert: same thing
			# {{diff2\|1267751151\|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	* 4th revert: same thing
			# {{diff2\|1267747621\|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''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 -->
			# {{diff2\|1267751597\|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
			# {{diff2\|1267301347\|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"
	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	He has repeatedly flagged it as deletion. It is a work in progress. Evertime a piece is added he deletes it.
	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	User has done this to others in past. I am also the person behind the page.
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	This guy has done it to others. The page should not be deleted. It is a person who is part of MSN GAMING zone article.
	:'''Result''' - No violation. This is a page that has been recreated repeatedly, after speedy deletion for A7 (lack of notability)and G11 (advertisement). Consider working on a new version in your own user space, and get feedback before putting it back as a real article. ] (]) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

			User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Page: {{article\|Royal Canadian Mounted Police}}
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	* User: {{userlinks\|Braincomputerguy}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1000mods}} <br />
	* Previous version reverted to: Material added by IP
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mindxeraser}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:		#
	* 3rd revert:		#
	* 4th revert:		#
	* 5th revert:		#
	* 6th revert:

			'''Diff 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 -->

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on <s>article</s> users talk page: and .

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Obviously I could block them or protect the page myself but that would just leads to claims of abuse or COI. ] ] ] 16:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
			{{AN3\|b\|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
	:Blocked for editwarring for 24 hours.--] (]) 17:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fernanda Torres}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No vio) ==

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
	* Page: {{article\|CSI: NY}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Ckatz}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	I am not very good at this, so I am trying to provide the information to allow this to be investigated without much trouble. ] has repeatedly replaced the name of ], who formerly played ] on ] - but died in the second season and is no longer on the show. I think (but am not sure) User has been warned - they surely see the notes when someone reverts reminding them character is dead - but continues to revert edits back to their preference to see this person in the main cast listing. This has happened 6 times since June 9th, and many times before that date. I do not necessarily wish this user blocked unless Powers That Be find this should happen, but I would like to see a semi-stern warning issued - then a block if they repeat the behaviour. I do believe the majority of this user's edits are in good faith, but they do not seem to understand a dead character does not belong under "Main Cast" unless they are currently appearing as a spirit every week. I have read some of the archives of Ckatz, and they are counseling users as an apparent admin. Perhaps they believe if they don't violate 3RR in a 24 hour period it's okay. Thank you. Trista (unable to log in at work) ] (]) 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
	:This is not a 3rr issue, but part of a common misunderstanding regarding the Television project's guidelines and the way in which we address fictional subjects. (Newer editors tend to insist on removing actors if their character dies, as well as changing "is" to "was" when a show ends.) I will attempt to explain it to the user. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 16:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
	:I've left a note for the above user on the most recent IP talk page ], as well as a similar note on the ]. Hope this helps. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
	::I have requested the ''Misplaced Pages Guidelines'' that say this is the way it truly is, as I do not understand why a character who is no longer starring in a show is still listed. Whatever it says, I will follow - as I want to be a good editor. Trista ] (]) 17:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
	:'''Result''' - No violation. ] (]) 18:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	* Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->
			{{AN3\|b\|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 ] (]) Removed the tag for original research HERE IN FIRST REVERSION
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bop_It&diff=prev&oldid=297374396
	It was Restored by User Thibbs HERE
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297374396
	The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 ] (]) was the next person after Thibbs to edit and he removed the tags HERE IN SECOND REVERSION
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297389955
	After a series of edits by the User at IP address 92.12.195.143 ] (]) I came to the page and I tagged it for a few things including the same ORGINAL RESEARCH tag HERE
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297535151
	The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 ] (]) then promptly removed the tag again HERE IN THIRD REVERSION
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297554371
	I reverted ONCE to replace the tag HERE and placed a general note on the talk page for the User at IP address 92.12.195.143 ] (]) about not removing tags without proper reason
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bop_It&diff=prev&oldid=297563828
	The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 ] (])then promptly removed the tag again HERE IN FOURTH REVERSION
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bop_It&diff=next&oldid=297563971

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==
	On the Talk page for The User at IP address 92.12.195.143 ] (]) there is a tag noting that '''someone suspects the address is being used by an indefinitely blocked user by the name of ] (])''' On the talk page for ] the blocked user has requested to be unblocked and as an argument for his reinstatement he pleads that his edits on this Bop It article using an IP address should be considered in unblocking him.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
	I think this warrants Admin attention.
	<!-- 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\|Csknp}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A92.12.195.143&diff=297570903&oldid=297183590

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	His discussion of the matter was merely to state on the article's Talk Page: "No!!!!!!!!!!!! WE WILL NOT FIX THE ARTICLE!" as he removed the maintenance tags on the article.
			# {{diff2\|1267452946\|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			# {{diff2\|1267525585\|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Bop_It&diff=prev&oldid=297560180
			# {{diff2\|1267644988\|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
			# {{diff2\|1267646582\|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Thank you for looking into this.
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267699885\|diff=1267736737\|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}
	] (]) 17:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
	:'''Result''' - As another admin has noted, 'Block evasion isn't usually considered a reason to unblock.' IP was warring to remove tags. Article has been semiprotected. ] (]) 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 12h block) ==
			This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}} (by {{u\|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
	* Page: {{article\|Israel}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Drork}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	* Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|5.187.0.85}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: not actually my attempts: ].
			# {{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:'''
	''''']''''' 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|b}} 12 hours and notified of ]. ] (]) 20:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] (Result: See above) ==

	* Page: {{article\|Israel}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Drork}}

			<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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

	* ~~1st~~ ~~revert~~: reinserts picture removed by ]		'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* 2nd revert: reverts my removal of picture
	* 3rd revert: reverts SD's second removal with caption of "I see an edit war in the horizon"
	* 4th revert: reverts my second removal

			'''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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning: This is in a thread on Drork's talk page started by Supreme Deliciousness in response to Drork placing a warning on SD's talk page accusing him of starting an edit war. I deemed Drork experienced enough that mere mention of 3RR sufficient for him to understand the consequences.--] (]) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See thread at .
	Also see
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->Although it might seem at first glance that I am acting as a tag team with ], he isn't someone I normally agree with. Indeed I have about him recently. It's just I think he's right on this issue.--] (]) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	*{{AN3\|c}} See above report ] (]) 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> The user was warned multiple times to not insert ] ] in a page which is a ]. Despite this, the user has continued to insert ], while making no attempt to refrain from disruptive editing behaviour or initiate a discussion on the talk page.<br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Nominating editor blocked - 24 hours ) ==

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Page: {{article\|Michael Ben-Ari}}
			:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* User: {{userlinks\|Mashkin}}
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	* Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

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

	~~Previous~~ ~~identical~~ reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	*
			# {{diff2\|1268002110\|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
	*
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
	*
	*

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

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: .
	* Previous attempt to generate improvement that user had deleted:
	* User:Mashkin's talk page before self-revert documenting a history of edit wars and problematic behaviou:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
	Editing with Mashkin is very frustrating. 'Deletionist' is too respectful a way to describe behaviour of edits that he disagrees with. He has a history of edit wars, almost 3rr and 3rr, and a recent 48 hour block after which he returned to the Michael Ben-Ari page. Technically, he did not break 3rr this time, but his behaviour and attitude has not changed and even perhaps continues in violating BLP. On the Member of Knesset ] page, there are two issues he cannot accept despite sources being provided: A) that Ben Ari is a rabbi (RS source provided using the term though many 'partisan' sources are available on the net referring to him as a rabbi) and B) that an 'investigation' has been opened and this is the wording of the source from a RS in English not something I made up. The user merely tries to defend himself by bringing OR (why this army department does not investigate anything) in defense of his deletes and claims non-RS even though this media organization is in fact an accredited body and widely referenced. There is never an attempt to compromise or suggest alternate wording. The user is set on making sure that this Member of Knesset's page not be improved. The subject of the article is not in the scope of the user's interest and his continued 'struggle for justice' (if I try to AGF) here is disturbing..--] (]) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	*{{AN3\|nb\|24 hours}} Please be more mindful of ] in the future. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Page: {{article\|Muhammad\|<!-- Place name of article here -->}}
	* User: {{user\|Lanternix\|<!-- Place name of user you are reporting here -->}}

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	* Previous version reverted to:
			Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
			*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
			:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
			*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
			*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
			*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
			*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
			*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
			*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
			*:
			*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
			*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{AN3\|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

			:That sounds good to me. I’m guessing he will get reverted anyway. If he reverts again, I’ll mention it here. ] (]) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	<!-- 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\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	] (]) 20:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{AN3\|p}} ] <sup>]</sup> 02:08, 21 June 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:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Page: {{article\|Manfred von Richthofen}}
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
	* User: {{userlinks\|74.248.89.30}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* 1st revert:
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	Talk page cautions:
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}
	This editor has a lengthy history of crusading against linkspam which is entirely commendable, however, the actions taken on one particular article have brought the editor into conflict with a number of other editors more actively involved in the development of the article. Other than edit comments and one "boilerplate statement" that did not deal with concerns that were raised, there does not appear to be consensus for the constant deletions. FWiW ] (]) 21:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	: Sigh. This isn't 3RR because of the times. I ''was'' going to issue a stern warning about misusing vandalism in edit summaries, but I see you've made exactly the same mistake on the anons talk page. This is a difference of opinion as to content, not vandalism by either side. However ''removing linkspam - all new links must be addressed and approved on discussion page'' is clearly wrong ] (]) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

	::It's blatant linkspam. Commercial spam links to online stores, a few MFA sites (Made for Adsense) to generate ad revenue, and most of those links don't even point to content specifically about the Red Baron. The other links removed should be moved to wiki.de and wiki.pl because they aren't in english. I know linkspam when I see it, Misplaced Pages is not a link repository. External links should add to the encyclopedic value of the article itself, and I intend to remove blatant spam links. ] (]) 00:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== Edit warring on ] article ==
			#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== User: reported by ] (Result: Jarvis76 and El Greco blocked 31 hours ) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	* Page: {{article\|Istanbul}}

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

			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.
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	Sorry for not strictly sticking to the established format, but I'm not sure who is to blame here, who is right, who is wrong and which specific policy should apply.

			* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
	Basically since about 28 May, most of the edits to the ] article seem to be centred around adding photos (by an editor), then removing (by another), then re-adding, then removing, etc. etc. etc. ''(ad nauseum)'' There seem to be more than two users involved.

			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)
	This contant 'yo-yo'ing makes it very difficult for any other editors to come in and make useful contributions without getting involved.

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	This should be discussed on talk page, with info on which policy or policies are applicable and some sort of consensus on amount of photos, which photos stay and which go.

			:]
	Some admin help here would be appreciated. ]] 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			:"""
			:] 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)
	*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}} - ] and ] appear to be the main participants in the edit war. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:01, 21 June 2009 (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 ] 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:~~No violation~~ ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	* Page: {{~~article~~\|~~doctor~~ ~~(title)~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|DoctorDW}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->
			# {{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:'''
	* 1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			:'''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)
	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	This editer has repeatedly deleted the edits from 3 different contributers, basically taking out anything that mentions that physical therapists (or the more general non physicians) take care in clinical situations to not give patients the impression they are physicians. He also refuses to allow in any information that doesn't relate to physical therapists, even though its not a physical therapist page and the page discusses multiple professionals. First he just reverted pages (as you can see from first link, the page's edit history) which I restored, then to not leave a revert history on the edit history he simply edited the page to change it to the same thing, over and over, and refused to accept others' offer to compromise...he seems intent on blocking any progress on this page, even removing references that are linked to the new content. I attempted to rewrite things and add references thinking that would please him, but that was just deleted too. ] (]) 01:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			: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)
	*{{AN3\|nve}} However there does appear to be a content dispute, I would suggest using some form of ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	I thought edit warring also constituted a violation? ] (]) 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	:Yes, but in this case it appears that there is a dispute over content that involves multiple editors. The editor you reported appears to have tried several different things to resolve this dispute and is using the talk page; that's not edit warring in my book. Btw one of your links (the fourth) isn't a diff. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	::fixed it; its the same as the last diff just the second time he blanked it. I suppose I could keep trying to restore the page once a day and leave more on the talk page, but I think its doubtful he will not revert anything that has references to clinical use of titles. Thank you for the advice. ] (]) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	:::Or you could cease the back and forth on the article and instead focus on finding a consensus on the talk page. If the small group of editors there can't find a solution, I would suggest involving the wider community through an ] or something similar. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	::::Will have to I guess, if you didn't look, we've alread tried the talk page. ] (]) 04:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Not sure if anyone reads these much after, but a similar pattern is happening on another page ] ] (]) 20:23, 21 June 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:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No vio) ==


	* Page: {{article\|Norton AntiVirus}}
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* User: {{userlinks\|94.195.86.16}}

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* Previous version reverted to:

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	<!-- 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\|Shecose}}
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offense and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
	:{{AN3\|nv}} It takes four reverts in 24 hours to justify a 3RR complaint. Plus, this new editor was never warned about the 3RR rule. Consider discussing the issue with him on his talk page, which is still a red link. (]) 04:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
	::That's the problem. His/her IP always changes. I believe I posted to one of his IP address' talk page, however he must have ignored it. He clearly reads the edit summaries; each time he restores the information with a summary addressing the summary I posted concerning why I removed the information. Did you see Norton AntiVirus' talk page, archive 2? I gave him time to fix his ref. I also posted tags above the text he posted. ] (]) 12:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	:::As requested by ] on my talk page, here is the notice on the ]. Look through the article history (this issue spans back a couple months), and several different anon. editors add the exact same information. ] (]) 05:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Jessicka}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Swancookie}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	* Previous version reverted to:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

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

	<!-- -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	* User had 4 reverts already when I reverted (had no idea that it was already a violation). User proceeded to revert a 5th time and then argued after being asked to revert. User keeps reinserting what appear to be ] violations by making contentious claims and referencing them with blogs. I'm wondering if I should take this to BLP/N, or would that be forum shopping? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} 3RR violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has also reverted four times but appears to be justified by BLP for at least one of the reverts. ] (]) 04:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	* Just to be clear, I reverted this when he appeared to be unfamiliar with ]. I then readded it when I realized he's been here for more than a year. ] (]) 05:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	*'''Comment'''. Please give Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at least a warning on this, IMHO they've shown soem rather bad faith and incivility toward this user and others on that and associated articles of the husband, the band(s) and ]. Newby users should not be assumed to be SPAs and should be welcomed per policy. ] 07:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	**'''Response'''. Banjeboi, you know perfectly well that Swancookie is not a new user, and has been editing since February 2008 (but had been absent in recent months. He or she returned earlier this week, made a string of personal attacks on four editors, including me, insinuated that our edits were motivated by anti-LGBT bias, denied making that insinuation, then made an overt, completely unfounded accusation of LGBT bias against me and began canvassing editors who had shown interest in LGBT subjects for assistance in this edit warring. I initiated an AN/I thread earlier this week (also warning Swancookie of his/her first set of 3RR violations, which led to a ratcheting up of Swancookie's attacks. This dispute has been running for three months, kept going by a string of single purpose accounts and sockpuppets, of which Swancookie is simply the latest. The common features of these SPAs and socks include their refusal to abide by BLP and RS, and their vigorous campaigns of personal attacks and incivility against editors who disagree with them. After months of this, it's time to start dealing with harassers like Swancookie as the disruptive editors they are. ] (]) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	***I know of no such thing. Believe it or not I seaw this as a newby who was sincerely asking for help which I did and they took my explanations at face value as I have taken them. Meanwhile i saw your comments toward them, myself and on at least the Clint Catalyst article as needlessly aggressive and borderline uncivil as is, IMHO, your comment to me here. Just so it's clear to all can you point out any proof that Swancookie is simply the latest in "a string of single purpose accounts and sockpuppets"? That's the kind of uncivil comment that casts doubt on you, not them. ] 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


	:Just to clear things up. I'm not a SPA. I have been a on wikipedia since February 2008 but had taken a long leave of absence from wikipedia to concentrate on school. In reality I have truly only been editing on wikipedia for a few months in total. Know that it was never my intention to upset anybody or vandalize the article ]. I added the citation I was blocked for to improve the article and strengthen the article not vandalize it in any way. I had a conversation on my talk page with Benjiboi ( who has been very helpful) about the reinserted citation (I was banned for) in and we agreed that it was fine. I don't believe I have attacked anybody here. I never insinuated Hullaballoo or any other editor of having an LGBT bias. I simply asked for an editor/admin that had a little knowledge on the subject so I could ask them about starting an article about a transgendered musician.
	:I've tried to sort this out but rather then engage me editor to editor Hullaballoo removed my request from his talk page.
	Hullaballoo again and again describes the articles I'm editing as those of "certain minor-league celebrities" These articles are about people whom are musicians, artist, and producers. They aren't celebrities, minor league or other wise- and I have asked him to produce any reference that states they are. Hullaballoo's tone and uncivil behavior to all editors involved who do not agree with him leeds me to believe that he has a bias against these articles, that and the fact that he accused ] =] of being a sock puppet and mercilessly edits articles about he and his wife ] and any articles relating to them. I just don't understand why Hullaballoo's behavior here is excusable? Rather then be civil and semi- patient with new editors he spouts policy and negative uncivil condescending comments about editors and the articles they are editing.

	:I am coming here in good faith and I am asking for any help regarding this situation. I'd like this resolved before I make more edits to any articles or start a new article because I believe if Hullaballoo thinks the article is related in any way to articles ], ], or ] he will edit within an inch of it's life until it can be nominated for speedy deletion.
	:I'm not being disruptive or deceptive, I assure you. I just want to see the articles be the best they can be ] can not say the same.
	I will be the first to admit I am not well versed in all wikipedia policy but I am learning as I go. It appears I still have much to learn regarding the policies and guidelines. The more I get help from editor's like Banjeboi they better editor I can become.
	] (]) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Wade Rathke}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|75.57.213.195}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Pecker Checker}}

	<!-- 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: (This was the first introduction of content in violation of ])

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	* 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning: No formal warning given to this SPA sock of a probable banned user; fully aware of Misplaced Pages policies (see below).

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	This IP editor continually re-inserts the same controversial content into a ] after the sources have been revealed to be inaccurate and discredited. While this has been explained on the talk page, and this editor has been requested to discuss his edits on the talk page, he hasn't -- he just keeps reverting. He has broken the ] rule as well. I have not broken the 3RR rule yet, but I fully intend to as authorized by ]: ''"The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals."'' - unless an administrator here wishes to explain why I should not do so. Semi-protection of the article is also warranted, as evidenced by the recent disruptive edits and vandalism by IPs and new SPA accounts.
	:(Note: At the risk of convoluting this matter, I strongly believe ] = ] since they both are SPAs with the sole purpose of introducing this small bit of content into this article. Pecker Checker stopped editing after he was caught lying about his source.) ] (]) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	:: I am ], I forgot my password, my apologies. Contrary to Xenophrenic's misrepresentation the sources used to include the material are not inaccurate, have not been discredited and other contributors have agreed with me that the material in question merits inclusion based on the sources provided. He is deliberately misrepresenting what is talking place on the article to exonerate his own misbehavior and edit warring. If I am to be sanctioned for this, he should be sanctioned more severely. It would also appear that Xenophrenic is looking ot have the article place under semi-protection just as a way to enforce is edits. -PC <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::: The only misrepresentation has been your sourcing, and the discussion page reflects that. Every editor to comment has expressed concerns with your insertion. An additional level of care must be taken when editing BLPs. I'm requesting that an admin take a little additional time to look into this matter in more detail. ] (]) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Not true in the slightest, you seem to be the only one bothered by the sourcing as the discussion page indicates. I would invite any adminstrator to verify this. ] (]) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	::'''Result''' - 24h for ], who admits he is the same as the IP, and semiprotection since the IP is dynamic. The IP has violated 3RR. If there are any BLP issues here I don't see them as very significant. I suggest filing at ] to get more opinions. Who is the 'probable banned user?' ] (]) 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Wavelength}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Brews ohare}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

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

	(these June 20 reverts are just the latest in a dispute of Brews ohare against the other editors, mostly me and Srleffler)

	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	Actually, most of the talk page is about this dispute, which started when Brews showed up on the page on June 10. I've reverted almost everything he's done, but have kept a few bits and added a lot of sources, as Srleffler and I have tried to talk him into being reasonable. But he just keeps getting worse, and now even does a 4th revert today after we both warned him. He has taken the 7 KB article up to 20 KB by adding material that no other editor agrees is sensible, and that is mostly unsupported by sources or irrelevant to the topic; when he's challenged, he just adds more irrelevant detail and more irrelevant sources.

	] (]) 06:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	:You missed one: . Brews was already at four reverts when I warned him, and proceeded to add a fifth.--] (]) 07:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	::''Response:'' Many of these reversions did involve added sources and revisions, and so are not strictly reversions. They were made by editing the reversion in the text editor before doing the reversion, which may disguise their nature. That was necessary as the entire section and all subsections were deleted, leaving nothing in the article available for more limited editing. These changes never satisfied Dicklyon and Srleffler, who rather than propose sensible changes or deleting portions, simply made global deletions of entire sections I worked on, regardless of their relevance to the dispute, accompanied by derogatory remarks instead of commentary. Material I proposed for RfC was summarily deleted within hours, leaving no time for comments to arrive. References provided to support argument were not taken seriously unless they contained the word "wavelength' explicitly, even when the argument was of a background nature and had not yet reached the implications for "wavelength". Responses to their nitpicking (in the form of espousing specious innocence about basic facts) are categorized as "irrelevant detail", and result in deletion of entire sections. I have decided that I cannot spend any more effort making figures, finding sources, and rewriting text in this environment. I am one contributor against two others exercising rigid rejection regardless of content. Of course, this is just my rationale. However, I believe their actions are a high handed power-trip, and have little to do with improving the article. The material I wished to add to the article and repeatedly deleted by Dicklyon and Srleffler may be found at ]. ] (]) 13:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	:'''Result''' - ] blocked 24 hours. I consider his actions to be a form of disruptive editing, since he is edit-warring to add apparently non-standard material into a physics article about a well-known topic. Changes of this magnitude require consensus, and I don't see him waiting to persuade the other editors. I am warning Dicklyon that his own repeated removal of Brews ohare's material risks being challenged. He has the option of posting the matter on a physics noticeboard to get wider attention. Admins who think that the actions of other participants may require blocks can go ahead and do so. ] (]) 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	::Thanks for the advice; where can I find this physics noticeboard? So far I'm unable to locate it. By the way, I did incorporate what I could of Brews's material over the last week and a half, but it wasn't much (what he added was much, but what was relevant and verifiable was little). ] (]) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::]. ] (]) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (]) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC) (Result: No action, see report above) ==

	* Page: {{article\|Wade Rathke}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Xenophrenic}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert: – this one included the use of a vandalism tag when it wasn’t just vandalism that Xenophrenic was undoing
	* 4th revert:
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	Contrary to Xenophrenic's misrepresentation the sources used to include the material are not inaccurate, have not been discredited and other contributors have agreed with me that the material in question merits inclusion based on the sources provided. He is deliberately misrepresenting what is talking place on the article to exonerate his own misbehavior and edit warring.] (]) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	::Note to Admin: This is a retaliatory report submission. Please see related case, 2 entries above this one, and handle both at the same time. ] (]) 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	:::'''Result''' - No action, per report above. If anyone thinks there are major BLP issues here, please post at ] to get more opinions. ] (]) 18:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 48h) ==

	* Page: {{article\|Hugo Chávez}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Grundle2600}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	* 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* 3RR noted on talk page prior to fourth revert ; user had the cheek to claim a vandalism exemption (been around long enough to certainly know that couldn't be applied)

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* ]

	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	User has previously been blocked for edit warring. ] (]) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	...and admonished for edit warring and limited to one revert per ''week'' on Obama-related articles (which this obviously isn't). ]. ] (]) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	All I did was change the article to match the sources. You can't just make stuff up and add it to articles. It has to be sourced. I explain this very well on the talk page. ] (]) 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	:That this is a mischaracterisation of the dispute should be obvious to third parties from the diffs. ] (]) 17:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' (by R. Baley): User {{User5\|Grundle2600}} is subject to arbitration enforcement due to editing at the Obama page see:

	*Finding of fact (edit warring)

	*Remedy for Grundle2600: . Which reads, '''"Grundle2600 is limited to one revert per page per week. . ."''' Note that the remedy is broad, not just for Obama articles as noted (in the only objection) by NYB, "This restriction is overbroad insofar as it is not limited to the Obama-related articles." .

	*Enforcement for remedy: . Which reads, "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations." Also, "All blocks are to be logged at ]."

	I don't usually work in this area. But will look more closely and close this out if necessary. ] (]) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	: Has form and is, as you point out, on 1RR. 48h ] (]) 18:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: self-rv) ==

	* Page: {{article\|George Mason University}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Tide rolls}}

	* Previous version reverted to:

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

	* Diff of 3RR warning:
	* Notification of 3RR report: <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (as well as: )

	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	User:Tide rolls was warned about the 3rr rule after his third reversion. I asked him to use the talkpage and he responded by removing my comments from his user talkpage. ] (]) 19:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	* There is no content dispute on my part. The user's first edit was to blank a section with a disingenuous link . When I reverted that the user posted on my page in a challenging tone. I explained that I was reverting due the user's blanking sourced content. The user has known from the outset that I have no content issues with them or this article. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thanks ]] 20:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	::If one looks at ], you can see he is engaging in drive-by reversions. He jokes that he violates this policy 'three to four times a day'. ] (]) 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	:::I watch ]...I do not engage in drive-by reversion. The statement the user refers to was not a joke, it was fact. Please note that I posted "tecnically". I will not be posting more replies as the user has resorted to ad hominum attacks. Thanks ]] 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
	::::The changes appear to be unconstructive to say the least, I'm not sure how Tiderolls was at fault. Among other things, removing Karl Rove (just skimming through names, it was the first I knew right off the bat) for notable alumni and removing any reference to George Mason in its own history section. ] (]) 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	TR has self reverted. No further action is needed ] (]) 21:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* <s>Page: {{article\|British Isles}}</s>
	* <s>User: {{userlinks\|ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!}}</s>

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

	* <s>1st revert: </s>
	* <s>2nd revert: </s>
	* <s>3rd revert: </s>
	* <s>4th revert: </s>
	* <s>5th revert: </s>
	* <s>6th revert: </s>

	* <s>The user was blocked in April of this year for ] breach, and from his edit summaries was obviously well aware of the number of reverts he was making. --] (]) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)</s>
	::After just noticing that this 3RR breach was already earlier reported, I must withdraw this notice. My apologies. --] (]) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:48h ) ==

	* Page: ]
	* User: ]



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

	* Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	* 1st revert: -- June 20, 22:05 (see race equality section & Lede)
	* 2nd revert: -- June 21, 10:21 (see Lede)
	* 3rd revert: -- June 21, 19:18 (see race equality section & Lede)
	* 4th revert: -- June 21, 21:26 (see race equality section, Overview section & Lede)
	* 5th revert: -- June 21, 21:44 (see race equality section & Lede)

	Notes:<br>
	(1) This editor was .<br>
	(2) Note that the last three edits are such blanket reverts that they include actually replacing the correction of typos and grammar.<br>
	(3) The edits, while involving multiple sections, usually involve entirely false accusations of "POV-pushing" or "Plagarism" (absolutely none exists for either, not that that matters). Note re the false plagarism charge re one quote in the Lede, that was just one sentence in the Lede, while all of the other changes exist in at least 4 of the 5 reverts above, and I think that is thrown into the edit summary to attempt to get cover for all of the changes from 3RR -- not that that's the rule. For example, 4 of the 5 also involved reverts in the racial equality section -- if you want an easy thing to look at (large changes), just look at the continuing deletions in the "see also" tags in the Racial Equality section -- 4 different times the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was deleted from the See Also tag (just one example, but it's an easy one so you don't have to look through the whole thing).
	(4)This is actually just an extension of multiple reverts from the prior day as well:

	<!-- 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 -->

	Nothing is complex, but 4 of the 5 reverts are massive and tough to read. As stated above, if you don't want to read through the large diffs, just look at something simple like the "See Also" tags in the Race Equality section. For example, the original insertion of the ] in the "see also" tag is deleted in 4 of the 5 reverts above.

	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

	] (]) 22:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

	I have blocked Viriditas for 48h. He was edit warring against two users: Mosedschurte and Biophys, he has done more reverts, he was the only one doing blind reverts ] (]) 00:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Patryk Małecki}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Oleola}}


	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	* 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here --> This user has now simply deleted my attempt at discussion on his talk page so I've moved it to
	] (]) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on {{Article\|Freddie Mercury}}. {{3RRV\|Greg D. Barnes}}: Time reported: 03:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	* Previous version reverted to:

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


	'''Comment''' ] was warned for edit warring after a period a multiple reverts on the Freddie Mercury article. Four reverts today in addition to at least 9 similar content reverts since June 1, 2009. User was issued a warning earlier today but chose to ignore the warning. The user's shows a clear understanding of 3RR with a previous indefinite ban being issued in October of 2008. The permanent ban being lifted only after an emailed apology claiming they would not violate Misplaced Pages policy again. ] (]) 03:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
	:'''Result''' - Blocked 48 hours. {{userlinks\|78.30.173.53}} also made four reverts and is blocked 24h. ] (]) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|John Oxendine}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|24.98.228.92}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning: (in the edit summary, at least). I did explain on the user's talk page that continually reverting to remove copy-editing and cleanup templates as part of a content dispute was considered vandalism that could lead to blocking.

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

	I don't think I'm guilty of violating the 3RR rule, as it's pretty obvious to me that this user was vandalizing, rather than merely disagreeing on content. But if I am also guilty, I so accept. ] (]) 06:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	== User:68.37.192.216 reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	* Page: ]
	* User: {{userlinks\|68.37.192.216}}

	*
	*
	*
	*

	Judging from and his talk page, this user has caused problems before with his anti-Russian edits and abusive language. Judging from his/her he/she has not changed.

	I have placed a warning on ].

	--] (]) 06:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Nick Griffin}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Slatersteven}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

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

	* previous reversions :,

	<!-- 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning: (this is for the earlier dispute)

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	. In danger of breaking the 3RR rule myself I have reverted my most recent edit to the last version by User:Slatersteven (which although factually correct, does not link the 1998 trial and Griffin's comments on the Cook Report, as are linked in the source provided on page 63 of .

	User:Slatersteven has admitted that he doesn't fully understand how to read citations provided in online sources, such as Google Books, demonstrated . He appears to read my edits, disagree with them, reverts them, and then (once I have demonstrated that they are correctly referenced and that the source material backs them up), quietly either leaves them alone and moves onto another issue, or just continually reverts. This is where I now find myself, faced with an article that could be better, but unable to make the changes for fear that he will just revert to an earlier version. Its a waste of my time and frankly I'm growing tired of working on an article and having to continually explain myself to a user who doesn't understand the most basic concepts, even once they've been explained to him. The most recent insult is , where he all but accuses me (in the heading) or pursuing untruths and breaching Misplaced Pages policies (this from a user who introduces possibly unreliable sources such as . He is picking the smallest faults in anything he can find (regardless of whether any exist), and creating problems where none exist. Its worth noting that his additions to the article are close to zero, his edits tend mainly to be concerned with moving material around, and focussing on trivia.

	I've done a lot of editing to this article over the last week or so. I found it a largely biased and unreferenced article, have sourced ''everything'', all with what are generally considered to be reliable sources, and added and expanded the article to a degree where I consider it good enough for WP:GAN (indeed it is awaiting review there now). I'm entirely open to constructive criticism but what this user is doing is, I believe, disruptive, and unproductive. I'm quite genuinely of the opinion that this user does not understand what an encyclopaedic article is. ] (]) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	:Have I breached the 3RR rule (I appear to have not done), if not then perhaps an admin need to explain the rule to him. I will not comment on his other accusations as this is about 3RR.] (]) 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	::The title of this report very clearly says 'edit warring'. ] (]) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


	:::Many of the users edits whilst they are sourced do not always make the claim the editor implies http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=297886349&oldid=297802269 Niether source makes this claim. POD goes on to admit that there is no direct linik between the trial and the TV show http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&diff=297907078&oldid=297906649 even thoguh the section he is moving it to is about the trial. But still insits there is a 'contextual' linki (but still does not say were the source claims this http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&diff=297910448&oldid=297910252. He continues to refuse to provide the quote to back his claim up http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Nick_Griffin&diff=297906685&oldid=297905394.] (]) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	::::If you do not understand why Griffin's anti-Semitic writings in a right-wing magazine, his subsequent trial for those writings, and his secretly-recorded comments on the man who reported him to the police in the first place, belong together in the same section, then I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you. Most readers would find it easier to understand the relationship between these two if all information on them were presented together. This is what I want to do, in exactly the same way as the loss of Griffin's eye is best presented in the chronology of his career, about the time of his withdrawal from politics (Slatersteven wanted this information in the 'Family and personal life' section).

	::::Slatersteven's objections to most of this is that as headings exist where such information might be included, then that information should instead go there. I'm not even certain if the article warrants those sections (certainly the sections on Islam and Climate Change are so short as to be almost trivia). I haven't finished work on the article, not by a long chalk, but I don't think I'll ever finish while Slatersteven nitpicks over every tiny matter he can find, reverts edits without prior discussion or without understanding how to read sources, introduces unreliable and incorrectly-formatted references, and generally behaves as though I exist only to satisfy his curiosity. I hesitate to resort to ad-hominem (although Slatersteven's accusations of bias and poor sourcing make it easier), but this user's actions remind me of an ]. ] (]) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	:::::They were, in thE section about his anti-semitsm. dop then moved it to the section about his trial with out discusion (as most of dop'S edits have been) User DOP also makes reversions without discusion indead in many cases I had to start a discusion on these very subjects. His eye may have influenced his withdrawl from politics (but it was 'not about the same time' it was the following year, another of POD's appriximations). But non of the soources made the claim, and in two areas of that debate POPD had to admit that I was accurate, just not very good at providng properly formated (but still working and checkable) sources. However that is not what this is about. Yes I agree I belive that information should go in the correctly headed section (for shame). As to the idea that the section on Islam is not needed I find very odd.] (]) 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	Please don't bring content disputes here. One of your reverts - - just adds the word "later" which isn't very convincing ] (]) 22:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	:Not sure why that happened as I was trying to undo a paragraph move.] (]) 12:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

	:So what am I to do? How do I resolve this matter? I've tried, believe me, but this is a last resort. Where do I go now? ] (]) 09:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

	::Try reading one of my posts you deleted, it might give you a clue.] (]) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	*] violation on
	{{Article\|Template:User_en-gb-5}}. {{3RRV\|Mintrick}}: Time reported: 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted to revision 297779606 by ]; uncivil. (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted to revision 297786159 by ]; irrelevant. It's still uncivil.. (])")</small>
	# <small>(edit summary: "Reverted to revision 297861661 by ]; that merely established it should be kept. Not the wording.. (])")</small>

	<!--
	You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't
	you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is
	reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	—] (]) 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	: 12h. Deletion debate is clearly in favour of keeping existing wording ] (]) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Jon_and_Kate_Plus_8#Multimedia}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|PhilthyBear}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	* 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PhilthyBear&action=edit&section=4

	*

	I was the one who created the chart for the DVDs and I added the Canadian dates with the word "Canada" in brackets, for the third date. No one objected until now. I've asked this user, nicely, to leave it alone, they refuse. Now this user is trying to tell me I'm adding dates for Hawaii and Alaska, which isn't possible since I'm Canadian and my dates from Amazon.ca. ] (]) 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	*The DVD chart is inaccurate. The third dates are for Hawaii and Alaska. Even if Canada's release dates were infact as you incorrectly state the date they are. Quoting (Canada) in brackets is unnecessary and crowds the chart. I agree with ] edits. He/she linked the ] which you erased for unknown reasons. You are just as much at fault if not more than he/she is. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	* '''User is already blocked for 24h'''. <b>]</b> 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 2 weeks) ==

	* User: {{userlinks\|Tnaniua}}
	Trying to figure out how to handle the esoteric formatting requested here is beyond my understanding. Please accept this anyway.

	] is in a continuing edit war over the ] article, adding his own personal opinion about a report which characterizes developed countries, edit warring to add ] as a developed country. Note that I have no axe to grind in this debate, I just stumbled across Tnaniua's edit warring while reviewing Recent changes. I suggested that all he needed to do was to provide a reliable source as to the report's inadequacy, but that was rejected with a reversion. Perusal of Tnaniua's Talk page and edit history shows that he has had several different editors suggesting that he stop the war, but he refuses. ] (]) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	: 2 weeks ] (]) 22:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: 3h) ==

	* Page: {{article\|Hypatia_of_Alexandria}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|207.112.74.90}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	* 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	(User was warned multiple times on IRC to stop, as this reversion was over them changing the article to fit their claims during a debate in #ChristianDebate in DalNet. If necesary I can cut and past the IRC transcript here.)

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

	Just an anon causing a headache. ] (]) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

	: ''2009-06-22T20:13:22 Mazca (talk \| contribs \| block) blocked 207.112.74.90 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Edit warring) (unblock \| change block)''. The other anon got zapped for vandalism ] (]) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Vector Marketing<!-- Place name of article here -->}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|98.225.16.77<!-- Place name of user you are reporting here -->}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	* 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. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Has been warned by multiple users using edit summary instead

	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	* {{IPvandal\|98.225.16.77}} Has continued to violate the three-revert rule without discussion after being warned and has only been used for vandalism such as removing information from talk pages without discussion.

	: Semi'd for a week ] (]) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

	* Page: {{article\|Bria_Valente}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Falsewords333}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

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


	There are approximately 4 other reverts all in the course of today! Ive asked the person why are they discrediting the album reviews and they are stating it is libelous? Obviously they have some personal agenda to take out video content that has been verified as Brenda M Fuentes nee Bria Valente. No one knows this woman except a select few Prince fans so why is Falsewords333 so adamant and aggressive?

	I do not need to warn the user as the user has TWICE warned me and I merely included media reviews of said subjects album

	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bria_Valente -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
	<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:'''Page protected three days''' - There has been a multi-party edit war. It has been claimed that Falsewords333 may have a conflict of interest, but the last version he edited at least is free of ] violations. Please use the next three days to discuss proper content for the article on its talk page. If reverts continue after protection expires, blocks may be issued. Unconfirmed stories about romances have no place in this article. 'Citation needed' tags are not appropriate in BLPs for anything important; if you don't have a source, the statement must go. ] (]) 00:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

	] (]) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)falsewords] (]) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
	xentrex seems to have an unusuall invested interest and agenda towards Ms Bria Valente and the information associated with her. Conflict of interest seems to apply if you are ademate on the inclusion of irrelevant information that is defamatory, unecessary and does not have a place in this type of site. It is only to serve xentrex own agenda. Bria is notable and relevant because she is a "Prince protoge" with an official CD release in 2009 "Elixer". 'Credited' facts on her music career are noted, as well as personal biographical information taken from the Tavis Smiley interview which is a credible Television show. I asked xentrex to please cease to pursue this course of action, posting negative media reviews, personal attacks and irrelevant information. That type of 'information' is better left to internet gossip blogs and not on this site. I want to help keep Wilkepedia clean and civil. Thank you.

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

	* Page: {{article\|Life}}
	* User: {{userlinks\|Stevertigo}}

	<!-- 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. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR -->

	<!-- 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 -->
	== ], already subject to editing restrictions, keeps on violating rules ==

	] operates with a significant '''confrontational attitude''' and has consistently shown '''disregard to the "No Original Research"''' rule and POV while editing ] article: he creates his own definitions, such as the analogy "biological machines" ), , sentience as a (false) requirement for an organism to be considered alive . Another example: "...while I understand the "distaste for original research, I consider ] makes sense far superior to versions like the current one" ; and suggested the use of a "credentialized linguist" instead of quoting the required references..

	Stevertigo has persisted to post long-winded assays on the ] page pushing his POV and has '''consistently failed to produce references''' to his ] own definitions he inserts in the article.() After several demands -over several weeks- for him to quote references,, ; he finaly explained his inability to produce them was because he would need to use his "credit card" and because "None of which (research papers) particularly interests me".

	He '''uses the ] page extensively as a forum''' for his assays. Once he actually introduced an assay (100% OR) into the main article:. As a cell & molecular biologist, it is alarming seeing Stevertigo, without any formal education in biology, fabricate statements, terms and definitions, and push them in the talk page and in the article. On one occasion he introduced one reference, but it does not quote or support the definition (his Original Research) that he introduced., so I also corrected that.

	Of outmost importance, '''Stevertigo recently became ] for edit-warring''': "He is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."

	Since he has proven to be disruptive in the ] article, I notified the involved editors on the Talk:Life page of the editing restrictions imposed on Stevertigo for his edit-warring, however, '''he deleted my post and proceded launch threats against me'''. With this violation and revert, he has once more defied the rules and violated the restriction placed by Administrators in no uncertain terms. Therefore, I respectfully request that his non-compliance enacts the disciplinary blokage proposed by the corresponding Administrators. ] (]) 01:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. Not necessary for repeat offenders. If you fail to warn someone who has no previous offence and is unlikely to know of the rule, your report is likely to be rejected. -->
	* Diff of 3RR warning:

	<!-- You're tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	* Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , , , , , , , , and last but not least:

	<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->] (]) 01:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
	:Note, this matter was also referred to AN/I, so this EW report may be redundant. Inasmuch as no 3RR violation is claimed, and without offering any opinion on the merits of this, maybe that is a better forum? ] (]) 02:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:23, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

User:Chance997 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Page protected (by BusterD) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:80.200.232.89 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

Categories: