Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:29, 27 September 2009 editCIreland (talk | contribs)Administrators19,686 editsm →Persian Empire edit warring reported by User:Ottava Rima (Result: ): fix links← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:36, 9 January 2025 edit undoMrOllie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers237,365 editsm →User:80.200.232.89 reported by User:MrOllie (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 = 111 |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__
<!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators&#039; noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>-->


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film)}} <br />
== ] and ] reported by <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> (Result: semi) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Chance997}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
*] violation on {{Article|Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse}}. {{3RRV|81.138.10.158}}: Time reported: 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#
User:81.138.10.158:
#
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 312496516 by ] (])")</small>
#
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 312581560 by ] (])")</small>
#
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 312935640 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313182880 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313184689 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313185362 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313186318 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313187862 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313188295 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313188701 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313189058 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313193379 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")</small>


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
And user:68.9.22.155:
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 312241174 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "TRUTH WILL OUT!")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 312556481 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "input poems")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "seven trees")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Truth to the fore, again. Getting tired of this.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313183655 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313185038 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313186101 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313187600 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313187985 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313188404 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "] revision 313188907 by ] (])")</small>


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
''Aqwis (talk | contribs | block) m (3,987 bytes) (Protected Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC))))'' should do you ] (]) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:Your position seems to be that this is an unregistered SPA, and since the article has been semi-protected, further action would be ]cratic. That only holds only if we make some dubious assumptions. For instance: that the parties don't register an account to circumvent the protection (3RR applies per person not per account, as you know). That this really ''is'' an SPA, and 3RR violations trigger a ''topic-specific'' block (they don't, as you know). Or that 3RR confers discretion to block or not. Users can be blocked for ''edit warring'' at the discretion of an admin; once 3RR is violated, however, the response is defined in mandatory--not permissive--language.
:More importantly, my understanding is that admins impose escalating consequences based on a user's block log. Short-circuiting 3RR here therefore has real bite, because behavior that should merit a block will not be in the record for a future admin to consider in determining how to respond to a future violation.
: The appropriate response to the filing of a report here identifying a flagrant violation of 3RR is application of the consequences mandatated by 3RR. <font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
:: Blocks are preventative not punitive. But I've met you half way and blocked one of them ] (]) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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)
'''Page:''' {{article|Gordon Brown}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Off2riorob}}


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)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
Previous version reverted to: (original edit)
:<small>'''Note by a third party:'''This edit by {{User|Paladin R.T.}} who created the disputed category on the same date is not the original edit. The filer misleads the previous edit.] 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)</small>


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ToadGuy101}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]
# {{diff2|1267771905|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267757010|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
# {{diff2|1267751151|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1267747621|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1267751597|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
User has been blocked for edit warring in the past: last unblock was advanced after he gave his word not to do so in the future...! ]:] 19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267301347|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
:First edit is from Revision as of 12:12, 20 September 2009 which is over two days ago, there was plenty of discussion going on all of it instigated by me, the discussion is over a catagory that I have nominated for deletion. I had a warning left on my talkpage and have made no edits to the article since then and have left the disputed catagory in the article. ] (]) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:Here is the discussion for deletion regarding the catagory for deletion that I started ] (]) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure whether I should "assume good faith" or think "plain vandalism" if someone creates a category "half-blind people" and then five minutes later goes ahead and attaches it to the article on the British Prime Minister (even if the man has lost sight in one eye). This is what happened here. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
*'''comment''' This seems to fall under ] exemption.-] 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I formatted the report since the timeline is very important to judge whether Off2riorob violated 3RR or not. However, I see no 3RR violation because the first revert occurred on two days ago, and the alleged "original version" is incorrectly prsented since the disputed category was created and inserted by {{User|Paladin R.T.}} on Sep.20. I'm not sure as to why the filer did not add the timeline because without the timestamp, Off2riorob seemingly violated 3RR (edit warred though for removing potentially BLP material). If {{user|Ninetyone}} believed Off2riorob violated 3RR, then why the 3RR warning was given '''after''' the last revert? Bad faith filing.--] 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
**One more disturbing thing to me is that {{User|Rrius}} also clearly reverted 3 times just like Off2riorob, but why Ninetyone did not report Rrius to here or give him 3RR warning? Ninetyone reverted one time which shares the view of Rrius.--] 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
***I gave Rrius a 3RR waring for the fairness.--] 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
****For "the fairness"? Ridiculous. Off2riorob was reverting to protect his version. He directed people to the talk page, but did not actually address the points raised there, which is his ]. He has a history of asserting that edits he wants to get rid of violate BLP, which after the number of times I have seen it from him suggests he is gaming the system. What's more, his history of blocks for edit warring suggest the warning was needed. I have no such history. -] (]) 22:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
*****You were also edit warring to keep your favorite version which currently remains. I don't know how rich his history may be, however, he did not violate 3RR, but reverted 3 times so did you. If somebody exploits his block history to win a content dispute, then he/she is the one "gaming the system".--] 22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
*This should be concluded with no action. The edit is the inclusion of a category, and a discussion is happening at the talk page including Off2riorob, Ninetyone, and me. As far as I can tell, the impetus for this report was Ninetyone's false belief that Off2riorob had violated 3RR, which he had not because the first revert happened more than 24 hours before the last. -] (]) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
**Don't anybody start accusing me of anything. I thought better of "filing a report", but then I checked Rob's form and saw the assurance given in the last unblock, and though this was worth raising. I don't give a toss about who did what, or when when, it's the fact that Rob gave an explicit assurance not to ''edit war'', which he seems to have gone back on, that caused me to bring this here. Now to address the smokescreen that's been laid: the wording ''"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."'' is very confusing; what I linked to ''was'' the version from before all the reverting took place - and I don't have a clue what the second part is supposed to mean. And here's a hint: straight out accusing someone of a "bad faith filing" shows just as much bad faith on the accusers part. And you don't give out warnings "for the fairness" either... ]:] 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
***Hmm. you have had a plenty of time to sharply say like that not only at CfD but here, but no time for checking the timestamp of the report? :-P That is a requirement for 3RR report of which you might be aware of. Your attitude unfortunately does not change my judgment on your filing. ] 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like both Rrius and Off2riorob were edit warring. No opinion on whether blocks are necessary or useful right now (if they have stopped and are now discussing things, as Rrius claims), but they were both edit warring when this was filed. <b class="Unicode">]</b>&nbsp;<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
:'''No action''' - The parties were edit-warring but neither one exceeded three reverts in 24 hours. Last revert was over 18 hours ago. I suggest that the issue be closed here unless the parties start reverting again. ] (]) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1000mods}} <br />
::If Off2riorob has been edit-warring, they have broken the on the grounds of which they were . I have been involved in an editing dispute with the editor at ], but I suggest a second look at this editor's recent history. ] 22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mindxeraser}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: 12h) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
*] violation on {{Article|Uri Geller}}. {{3RRV|Moondial}}
#
#
#
#


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
''Diffs are listed from newest to oldest.


# 00:48 Sept. 23] '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
# 00:22 Sept. 23]
# 00:10 Sept. 23]
# 20:11 Sept. 22]


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
This is just barely beyond the 24-hour threshold however a definite pattern has emerged and I have no doubt that if one of the three editors who have reverted this practice so far (myself included) were to revert him again right now, he would put his preferred version right back. He has repeatedly sought to scrub this reference to Uri Geller's practices being debunked, justifying it by either suggesting that an article by AP reposted by ] is a less reputable source than "UFO Digest," or saying he has information that "proves" that AP was wrong. This has been going on for days now, see this edit from Sept. 20: .


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
* 3RR warning: . (20:38, August 27, 2009 )
{{AN3|b|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
&mdash; ]\<sup>]</sup> 02:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fernanda Torres}}
The time interval which includes the reverts is 4:37; not 24:37. I was just going to report it, also. — ] ] 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:All the reverts include removing USA Today as a source (for the magnet), and adding UFO Digest as a source that he has psychic powers. — ] ] 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::12 hours as a first offender. --] (]) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31h) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Slavoj Žižek}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|84.109.74.77}}


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Previous version reverted to:
# {{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:'''
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1267807698|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1267808131|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Aside from the 3RR violation, the insertion is a violation of ] since it contains an accusation that Zizek stole his work from an unknown Israeli. As well as the BLP issue, it is futher a failure of ] and links to a non-English source. The anon is a SPA who's whole edit history consists of adding this link (also on the article ], but mostly on Zizek. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:'''Result''' - 31 hours for 3RR. ] (]) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC) {{AN3|b|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: 24h) == == ] reported by ] (Result: Page already protected) ==


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
'''Page:''' {{article|List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Werewaz}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Csknp}}
<!-- 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: (and several similar ones)


'''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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1267452946|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1267525585|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
The user in question is mass-converting ] to ] over a range of articles.
# {{diff2|1267644988|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
There are many more reverts and partial reverts on this page alone, see .
# {{diff2|1267646582|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"


'''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 -->
# {{diff|oldid=1267699885|diff=1267736737|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
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) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
*
*


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
<!-- 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 user talk page:
* (discussion on the user page due to the large number of articles affected
* Also see this ] discussion.


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
I could block myself, but think it is useful to bring a wider range of admins into play. --] (]) 16:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{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:'''
The total number of pages where 3RR has been broken (it's easier if I just post the articles rather than all the diffs)
*{{article|List of Asian countries by GDP (PPP)}} ‎
*{{article|List of Asian and Pacific countries by GDP (nominal)}} ‎
*{{article|List of countries by GDP (nominal)}}‎
*{{article|List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita}}


Additionally, similar POV edits have been made here:
*{{article|List of countries by future GDP (nominal) estimates}}‎
*{{article|List of countries by future GDP (PPP) estimates}}‎
*{{article|List of Asian and Pacific countries by GDP (nominal) per capita}}


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
] (]) 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:'''Result''' - 24h for edit warring, by ]. ] (]) 18:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
'''Page:''' {{article|Immanuel Velikovsky}} <br />
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Whatishere}} also to edit war as {{ipvandal|98.232.70.229}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
<!-- 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|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}


'''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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />Socking under an ip to keep a POV tag against consensus. ] 04:20, 24 September 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 />
:31 hours. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 04:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
'''Page:''' {{article|Ethnic flag}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|MessiniaGreece}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
# (several consecutive edits, reinstating the same series of edits from 7 September )
# (same series of edits)
# (partially same series)
# (partially same series, reinstating non-standard POV naming of "FYROM" for the fourth time, against Arbcom-imposed 1RR)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
*Single-article user who refuses to discuss – no talk page activity, no edit summaries, just stubborn reverts.
*3RR violation as well as violation of Arbcom-imposed 1RR on Macedonia naming issue per ] and ]. (Note that my own reverts were exempt from the naming-related 1RR, because they restored the consensus version of ]. I made two reverts including other content, and a third that was restricted solely to enforcing the naming guideline.)
*1RR warning given before the 3rd and 4th revert, here:
] ] 15:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:12 hours. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 16:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{article|War of the Pacific}} <br /> '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Keysanger}}
# {{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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"


Previous version reverted to:


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
**I was trying to post a Neutrality Warning in the page, but Keysanger reverted that twice.
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
**I also tried to include the fact that Chile declared war on Bolivia first, which official documents demonstrate, but he reverted that also (once).
**Lastly, I tried to mix sources and create a more neutral and less aggressive statement in the "Peru" section of the consequences of the war subtopic. Of course, Keysanger reverted that as well and claimed it to be "Vandalism."


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
* 1st revert:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
#
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
#
#
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
he removed my warning for whatever reason


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


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u>


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
*We, as in me, ], ], attempted to mediate a peaceful solution to the edit war by creating a chart of what we saw as problems. We did not even get half-way through the list, and Keysanger began to massively edit the article based on his own POV. This was the one that was being worked on by me, Likeminas, Dentren, and Keysanger prior to this last user taking ] of the article. If an administrator could please revert the article back to this version, it would be greatly appreciated. The information in this previous article is more neutral, and much more factual. The current version by Keysanger is pro-Chilean, anti-Peruvian, non-neutral, and contains erroneous information.--] (]) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
*Also, here is a proof of the discontent of some editors with the actions of Keysanger: .--] (]) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)<br />
*'''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)


*'''Another Comment''': Keysanger has been warned about the 3RR, but he has deleted the warning: . I'm notifying this in order to demonstrate that the user knows what he has done.--] (]) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (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)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


: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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week ) ==


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
'''Page:''' {{article|Glock pistol}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Koalorka}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
<!-- 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|37.72.154.146}}
Previous version reverted to:


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268203165|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204621|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204745|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204943|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268205104|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268208200|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"


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


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


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


== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
After making a good-faith edit, ] has reverted my edit a total of four times, in violation of 3RR. ] did not make any attempt to resolve the issue before reverting. After repeatedly asking ] to refrain from reverting a good-faith edit without first reaching consensus on the discussion page, threatening me, and calling me a vandal, I am reporting this negative behavior.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
In fact, my edit was supported by an additional user () -- anonymous, yes, so not as much weight, but still supported -- further indicating that ] is reverting my edit out of spite.


I request that my edit be added, and the page be protected from being again reverted by ] unless a consensus is reached against my edit on the page's discussion.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
] (]) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
#


'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|jersey_emt}}
:Looks like the disruptive editor beat me to it. I guess there is no point to starting a new section. I'll let the admins review the edit history of the affected page. I'll just state that the editor who has no knowledge of previous experience editing anything related to firearms on Misplaced Pages has decided that a shiny image of a new Glock appeals to the new user aesthetically, and therefore decided to engage me in an edit war, generating a wall of useless text on the discussion page and generally wasting everyone's time, because he didn't get what he wanted. I apologize for inciting the fire here, but I have no tolerance for degrading consistency or quality standards in well-developed articles to appease some random editor's tastes. ] (]) 00:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
::Even after one user agreed with my edit on the article's discussion page, and a different user re-applied my edit, also agreeing with it , ] has, now for the 5th time, reverted my good-faith edit to improve the flow of the article . In addition, ] has made the untrue (and irrelevant) claim that I have 'no knowledge of previous experience editing anything related to firearms', and has labeled me as another user's sock puppet (on top of labeling me as a vandal, and 'wasting his time').


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
::Clearly, ] is continuing to be disruptive and completely unable to handle anyone disagreeing with him. It seems to me that ] believes that he 'owns' the article, and that anyone that disagrees with him is automatically wrong. ] has a long history of blocks due to similar behavior in the past. He flips out when anyone makes edits that he disagrees with, making personal attacks and reverting changes without any discussion. The ability to successfully collaborate with others is a required skill on Misplaced Pages, and he has repeatedly proven himself unable to do so.


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.
::I have also further investigated ] claim that the issue of which 'generation' of Glock pistol should be the lead image had already been previously discussed and a consensus reached. I found no evidence of this; the change was made by him with no discussion (and therefore, no consensus) . ] (]) 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
:::A different user has re-applied my edit, also agreeing with it. ] has yet again reverted the edit (and labeling that user as a sock -- but that user has no relation to me), now for the 6th time. . Finally, the page has been protected, unfortunately it was done so right after the 6th reversion of my edit that was supported by 4 users (myself included).


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)
:::After 6 reversions by ] of an edit supported by 4 different users, I think it is made quite clear that, (a) my edit was made in good faith one, (b) my edit is an improvement to the article, with a more logical layout, and (c) ] behavior is a personal attack and his reversions were made in bad faith. ] (]) 14:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
I've blocked Koalorka for one week. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


:]
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked as a sock/meatpuppet) ==
:"""
:] 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)
'''Page:''' {{article|Law of the United States}} <br />
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Erik Ernst}}
::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: ) ==
<!-- 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|Biology and sexual orientation}}
Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff2|1268291574|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
# {{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:'''
<!-- 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 -->
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
We're having problems with ] (banned four years by ArbCom for POV pushing and racist remarks and permanently banned by SlimVirgin after repeated violations), his sockpuppets, and various friends of his who have been vandalizing the ] article. See his urging his friends to join him in such vandalism. ] already imposed semi-protection, which brought the anon IPs and newer sockpuppets under control but we're having problems with friends of Zephram's like ] who do not understand Misplaced Pages policies. I request a temporary block on ] for a few days and full protection for ] for a few weeks. --] (]) 08:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


:'''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)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
*'''Blocked''' as a sock or meatpuppet. <b>]</b> 19:18, 25 September 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)
: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: malformed report) == == ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==


'''Page:''' {{article|Sustainability}} <br /> '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Skipsievert}}


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
<u>Comments:</u><br />
For over a year now there has been a collaborative editing effort to bring the Sustainability article to GA or FA status. Throughout this period editor Skipsievert has refused to collaborate in editing, confronting each editor in turn. He has constantly accused the collaborative editing as being a team of people colluding against him despite constant invitations for additional editors from all concerned. He also has concerns about the article that he has expressed innumerable times and these, in turn, have been addressed many times by the editors who have reached consensus on the way to proceed, a consensus which has not been accepted by him. This has, in effect, constituted a pattern of tendentious editing for a long time. There have also been many accusations of current editors driving off potential new editors, being uncivil etc. when it it is not apparent to Skipsievert that he is in fact the incitor and perpetrator.
The latest edits on the Sustainability page are, to my mind just not acceptable. The article is at present of a high standard, aiming for GA at least and possibly FA. Aden and Skip have been suspected of at least tandem editing and possibly sock puppetry (see enquiry). Both are editing the Lead which has been worked on by a team of editors extensively. This is provocative to say the least. The editing is not IMO constructive in any way. I understand that editing is “ongoing” and that “ownership” is always an issue but the review process of the article has taken over a year by a team working together, with the exception of Skip who has constantly created difficulties. Unfortunately, IMO the article can only deteriorate under this sort of editing. This might seem a relatively minor issue but in the context of over a year's conflict the matter just has to be resolved - reading the last 2-3 talk pages and most recent archive will illustrate the situation - but almost any archive will demonstrate the editing battles and pattern of behaviour. ] 10:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Malformed report''' - please provide diffs etc. <b>]</b> 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Both parties warned) ==


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{article|Prizren}} <br />
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Tadija}}
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


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


<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* Addition:


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


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

<!-- 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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This user was trying to make changes without a discussion on matters that are more complex. The references used were from a biased source and from forums. Other sources added today cannot be verified, and the user did not quote any part from the text as it is standard in such discussed issues. Furthermore the user did not discuss constructively in the discussion page before making the changes. ] (]) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:'''Result''' - Both parties warned. You have both gone well past the point that you should have taken this to a wider forum. See ], and be aware that ] is easy to use. The Serbian reference that Tadija insists upon seems to go to a non-working URL, and the cited book shares an ISBN with an unrelated one. This suggests a problem with the reference. If either party continues to revert without getting support from at least one other person, they may be blocked. ] (]) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: nothing) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Kilmichael Ambush}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jdorney}}

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

As an established Editor they are aware of WP:3RR.

Diff were it was tried to resolve this edit war on .

'''Additional Comments:'''

This editor is also edit warring on:
'''Page:''' {{article|Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:

Adding information which is blatantly incorrect from even a cursory reading of the articles on the persons named in the edit. The most obvious being ] and ]. The information which was added was copy and pasted by an IP from .

'''Page:''' {{article|Charles Gavan Duffy}}

* 1st revert:

The exact same information was added to the ] which even contradicts the additions they replaced.

*'''No violstion''' - 3RR not exceeded in 24h period. Also, the creator of this report has reverted just as many times on ]. Articles will be protected if edit-warring continues, please discuss on talkpage. <b>]</b> 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

''The three-revert rule '''does not apply''' to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons.''

The information was clearly unsourced and biased. Therefore I did not violate the the three-revert rule. Having pointed out that the information was unsourced and incorrect to again add it back is obvious vandalism. To point an editor to ] and they still add it back is Edit warring is a behavior.

''Edit warring is a behavior, '''typically''' explemified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute.'' No effort was made at all to check or support the information suggesting that it was correct when .

I'll accept the decision by Black Kite, but not their conclusions. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

== multiple users at ] (Result: deleted (per GFDL concerns), redirected and protected) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Bulbasaur}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' multiple

No one has broken 3RR. On the other hand, all editors involved have been here for some time, and should know better than to edit war.

On the one camp, undoing the redirect, we have
*{{userlinks|Colonel Warden}}
:*
:*
:*
*{{userlinks|Peregrine Fisher}}
:*
:*
:There's an earlier pass at this by Peregrine Fisher, but it is blocked by an intervening delete. It happened sometime shortly before 23:49, 11 September 2009
*{{userlinks|Dream Focus}}
:*
:*

In the other camp, installing the redirect we have
*{{userlinks|Artichoker}}
:*
*{{userlinks|Bws2cool}}
:*
*{{userlinks|Kung Fu Man}}
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*
:*

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
This is a slow edit war, without a specific 3RR violation.

I'm well known for disliking the article in question, so one needs to take that into account when reading my take. I think that Kung Fu Man, Artichoker, and Bws2cool are being quite reasonable in pointing at the consensus with WikiProject Pokemon that having the article in project space to be repaired, and think that's a reasonable strategy. In spite of that, the number of redirects that Kung Fu Man has performed disturbs me. Peregrine Fisher at least recognizes the existence of the consensus at WikiProject Pokemon, and has discussed it at the project talk space. He seems to feel comfortable proceeding anyway.

DreamFocus and Colonel Warden, on the other hand, are not discussing at all: they simply are undoing the redirect. Colonel Warden also cut and pasted the contents of the project space article without attribution, causing GFDL problems.

Since the content of the article is safe and sound at ], which is '''''the only copy with a valid attribution history''''', my recommendation is to delete the article in mainspace, install the redirect, protect the redirect, and only undo it when a consensus to restore the article to mainspace can be demonstrated. Whether blocks or warnings need to be issued, and to whom, I leave to people who are a bit more detached.&mdash;](]) 18:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

* Yup - attribution history is wrong, so deleted. If the article returns from projectspace at some point, then someone can do a history merge if the editors concerned here ''really'' want to have a rather ] edit-war preserved for ever. In the meantime, consensus at the relevant Project was clear, and so I have recreated the article as a redirect to preserve the links, and protected it so that people can't continue embarrassing themselves. <b>]</b> 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
*What nonsense is this? I discussed it on the talk page of the article, where it should be discussed. What you have are some aggressive people determined to destroy an article, without proper consensus. And now Black Kite has deleted the article, history and all, without a proper AFD, and then locked a redirect there. On the talk page Peregrine Fisher found a notable media mention of the character, a biography of the fictional character, at IGN! That would clearly establish notability. If you disagree, take it to the AFD and do things properly. ]''' 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

:* Indeed. Deletion of the mainspace article is quite improper as there have been two AFDs for it already and it was '''Kept''' on both occasions. And it has been a Featured Article and so does not merit peremptory deletion. As for other details, a proper attribution was made in the edit summary to the fork created by the Pokemon project. As the article has been developed further with additional sourced material, it would be best to merge the forked versions and allow development to continue. ] (]) 23:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
::*] has responded to these concerns with further steps. See . Please take any continuing discussion to the RfC. ] (]) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Subaru Impreza WRX STI}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|gu1dry}}

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGu1dry

<!-- 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:

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

This stemmed from a content dispute, when I realised that we were both in danger of violating the 3RR, I put a message on the user's talk page suggesting that we both back off and leave the topic alone, so we could avoid edit warring.

I did not try to argue that my edit was correct on his talk page as this could be seen as trying to provoke the user into another revert, my priority was for us to both calm down and prevent an edit war from happening.

The user must be very aware of the potential of a block being given for edit warring, as they were blocked ten days ago for edit warring.

] (]) 22:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:'''Result''' - Both parties warned. I do not see four reverts in 24 hours, but repeated back-and-forth on the same point (automatic transmission) over an extended period could easily draw a block for edit warring. The sources appear to differ on whether an automatic transmission can be ordered, and the matter needs to be worked out on Talk before any more reverts happen. Citing both of the conflicting sources is an option for the editors to consider. ] (]) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Charles Karel Bouley}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kelly A. Siebecke}}

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->

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


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

Although not of her stature, would Cher's name be replaced with Sarkisian?? Charles Karel Bouley is commonly know as "Karel" and only uses his full name when writing i.e. Advocate and Huffington Post.
Repeating "Fired" NINE times ,including sources is redundant and unnecessary. Bill O'Reilly himself said that this was the second time Karel had been a pinhead. Will find source. More later...

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: After extensive searching on Wiki sites I cannot find how to post a warning. Please help! I don't know how speak in symbols, am willing to learn. I attempted to read filing dispute pages and became even MORE dyslexic!I need a real personn to assist me.

<!-- 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 -->
Yes I have sincerely tried to resolve this edit war My talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JoyDiamond. Kelly Riebecke's talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kelly_A._Siebecke
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . <No matter what I say or do, I am personally attacked in many ways violating Wiki standards.>

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
As you will see on my talk page I have been warned, I don't believe these warning were justified as I have stated on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration. I am NOT going to change anything, however incorrect, until an intervention with a real person. Are you that person? ] (]) 23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

:: Those edits all seem to have been made without any other edits inbetween, I don't think that is classed as edit warring. ] (]) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
:::'''No action''' That's correct, no violation of 3RR here, sequential edits count as one revert ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). ] (]) 09:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: (e/c) However I have protected the page fo a short time to force discussion. One side's edits (using the obituary as the source) don't actually back up the statement, whilst the other side (JoyDiamond) is using an unreliable source to back up their version. Neither is particularly useful. Please discuss on talkpage. <b>]</b> 09:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result:72 hrs ) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Quantum mysticism}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Likebox}}

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 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 -->
Most of the reversion is being done piecemeal, rather than automated reverts, hence there are a lot of edits for the page in a very short period of time - Total of 37 edits just today, and 13 yesterday. There are a similar number of edits on the talk page, but I don't think that there is much agreement in the content of the page.

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 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:


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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
I have not done any reversion on this page. ] has tried repeatedly to try to steer the page to a good version, and is not really succeeding. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

: Thank you for this report, as I do not know diffs well enough yet to have made it myself. I was going to just give up on the article. I prefer to handle things at the lowest level, but ] has had problems with another user, ], whom I came to aid through a posting on a portal page. The article was in "general distress" and in need of more editors. I came to assist and found that the article is written like an essay that argues that the term "quantum mysticism" is to be used as in the derisive sense. I did research on this, new subject to me, and found that quantum mysticism is an actual practice that has been in existence at least since 1993. I discussed changes on the talk page in an attempt to actually document this practice, report its claims, and facts. It is my opinion that Likebox is not going to simply give up the "old notion" of this articles previous state. I even went as far as trying to rename the article, simply because the contents do not match the topic of what quantum mysticism is. I would love to add content, but I am afraid that may be futile, since this person has dominated it. Thanks again, Ronhjones, as I appreciate someone looking out and see that I am just trying to do right by Misplaced Pages. I am unsure how many other editors have been dissuaded by this type of intimidation. Perhaps this will bring his actions to light. --] (]) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
:: Ugh, this is my comment above, I am using the beta and secure sever log in and it logged me out of Wiki when I clicked to this page from the https namespace. I had to log in by non SSL means to be able to sign! --] ] 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been only slightly involved in this wiki article, giving a "third opinon" and being involved in some minor discussions on the talk page. I more or less support Likebox' point of view as far as the content of the article is concerned. About editing the article, my experience here on wikipedia is that two editors with such different views on the focus of the articles cannot intensively edit the article at the same time without one or both of them violating 3RR. This doesn't have to be "edit warring".

I think locking the article pending a consensus reached on the talk page is the best way forward. An alternative approach could be that everyone agrees that one editor, say, Lightbound will be the only one who edits for, say, a week. Others editors (in this case Likebox) only give their comments on the talk page. This is the format that I recently tried with another editor on the entropy page. I had severe differences of opinion on the focus of that article with that editor. In that case this approach did not work because it turned out that the other editor did not understand the topic at all. But in principle, this could have worked had the other editor at least understood the topic. ] (]) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

: I must add that two users now have edited my user page. Not my talk page, but the user page itself. I can not help but feel this is related. One of the users was just created recently, ] and I believe may be a sock-puppet or somehow related. I do not wish to edit the article for two weeks. I will just give up entirely. I think it is an injustice to wikipedia, though, that an article is to be used as a debate page and not written about the subject itself. I have also begun 3rd option and am attempting to use dispute resolution. I am quickly running out of steam, though. If it is going to be this difficult to document what the article means, perhaps I am not meant for wikipedia. --] ] 21:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
:: I recently reverted an edit by ] on mass energy equivalence, and if you look at what I reverted, you see that ] is unlikely to be a "copy" of likebox. Also, the edit you reverted wasn't insulting. You can't call that "vandalism". Look at the edit history of my user page to see real examples of vandalism. ] (]) 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User has a history of edit warring and the page concerned was recently locked due to this editor and another edit warring. Blocked for 72 hours. ] (]) 01:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Souliotes}} <br />




Previous version reverted to:


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

Consecutive 3rrs on two days, uncivil and uncompromising behavior in talk page, masked by false statements of compromise being reached in order to do reverts. Refuses to acknowledge me and other editors when discussing, deeming us not contributors. This can be seen in the talk page of the article.

--] (]) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

:Reporter is blocked and I'm looking at fixing things anyway. ] (]) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 36h) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Acupuncture<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|99.255.196.199<!-- Place the name of the 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: and

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert: (the result of these two diffs is the version he reverts to here out)
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: (I ] at this point.
* 5th revert:
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ] (among others)

<!-- 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: ]
<u>Comments:</u> <br />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->] <sup>'''''Over ]''' FCs served''</sup> 06:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

: Please do something. The IP is continuing to edit war. -- ] (]) 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

*'''Blocked for 36h''' by ]. <b>]</b> 09:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Brothel<!-- Place name of article here -->}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|86.162.69.86<!-- Place the name of the 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nil, they're both irrational

There's two users that are reverting everything the other does (Multiple articles). The other is http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Elockid
I think they both need a rest. They've even just started arguing on my talk page. Both claim the other is a sockpuppet. Apologies if I've messed the formatting up here <br />
:: It might be worth trying to sort this one quickly, they're making a bit of a mess..
] (]) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

<u>Comments</u><br>
Please read up on ]. Please also my talk page. ] agrees that I was indeed reverting edits by a banned user which 3RR is not included in.

Please also note that {{user|86.162.69.86}} has been blocked for being a sock of Nangparbat. . <span style="font-family: Papyrus"><b><font color="DarkRed">]</font></b></span> <sup>(<font color="BDB76B">]</font></sup>·<sub><font color="B8860B">]</font>)</sub> 14:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

*{{AN3|a}} I've already blocked 86.162.69.86 for 1 week. 86.162.69.86 is a sock of Nangparbat. Elockid was reverting the edits of a banned user, so there is no need to take any action against Elockid. ] (]) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Scrubs (TV series)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|118.93.41.107}}

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: 11 minutes after being warned

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

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 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: N/A

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

*{{AN3|b| 31 hours}} ] (]) 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hours) ==

'''Page:''' {{article|Tayong Dalawa}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|79.78.6.136}} and {{userlinks|79.78.7.164}}

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->

For: 79.78.6.136
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

For: 79.78.7.164
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

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

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 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:

<u>Comments:</u> This user has already used foul language in his edit summaries and - as 79.78.6.136 - claims I am a sockpuppet of banned user GMAFan per . User has yet to explain his edits and even continued at the Tambayan Philippines talk page and at my personal talk page per . <br />

I recommend rangeblocks on edits from this 79.78.XXX.XXX range if such vandalism persists. Thank you. -] (]) 14:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

*{{AN3|bb| 48 hours}} ] (]) 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Republic of Macedonia}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Ephestion}}

* previous version:
#
#
#
*Revert-warring about "Macedonia" naming, against Arbcom-imposed 1RR as per ]
*Warning and explanation: ]

] ] 16:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
:'''Result''' - Blocked 31h by ]. ] (]) 17:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Fear (film)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|70.126.138.78}}

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

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

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 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: N/A

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

] (]) 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
:'''Result''' - 31 hours for edit warring and incivility. The IP undid his last revert here, but he has been warring on other film articles and leaving edit summaries such as . Elsewhere, edit summaries like 'Asshole' and 'The fuck'. If this keeps up, there may be a longer block in the future. ] (]) 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sposer}}

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: of removal
* 5th revert: again
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 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: ]

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

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Started as an issue with al-Ahram being used as a source. This has been discussed at both the article talk page and the ] with uninvolved editors agreeing that the source is a reliable source as a major news organization. Repeatedly removing the source then trying to poison the well using synthesis by adding criticism of the paper that nobody has related to the topic of the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small>

:Actually, I misunderstood that my first edit was a revert. The last two edits were not a revert, but adding a clarification. I was about to self revert the second revert anyway, but somebody already did. I put multiple notices on the talk page, but all people did was revert. I am no longer watching that page. ] (]) 21:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
::'''Result''' - Sposer went over 3RR but has declared that he will no longer edit the article. Unless he changes his mind, no admin action is needed. ] (]) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{article|Persian Empire}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Alefbe}} and {{userlinks|Akhilleus}}

<!-- 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, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert: by ]
* 2nd revert: by ]
* 3rd revert: by ]

Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring. Page use to exist. It has, since August, been edited out of existence. Three polls have taken place with one an official RfC. Each time, the vast majority have stated that they oppose a reduction in size of the page to either a disambiguation or a redirect. Each time, the consensus was ignored and the page redirected. Alefbe and Akhilleus are constantly edit warring it out of existence without any consensus to make such a change. The page is a top priority page and a high priority page in two different WikiProjects. Akhilleus, an admin, knows not to edit war and knows that there has been edit warring on the page. Alefbe has also been told. This is part of an on going request for Arbitration in which allegations of admin abuse including Akhilleus on this very page. ] (]) 03:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
:Um, that was my first ever edit to ], so I'm surprised to see that I'm "constantly edit warring". And this post doesn't make any sense unless Ottava is alleging that Alefbe and I are sockpuppets. If that's what he's saying, I hope he will open a case at ]! ] (]) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ottava Rima: I have done 2 reverts on Sep. 25 and Sep. 27. So what? Those 2 reverts are backed by the discussion in the talk page. The relevant discussion shows that my 2 recent edits are backed by most of the users who have recently commented on that talk page. ] (]) 03:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:36, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Page: Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Chance997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Page: 1000mods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mindxeraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

    Categories: