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

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

Revision as of 00:57, 21 January 2006 editAndroid79 (talk \| contribs)10,494 edits →[]← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025 edit undoAneirinn (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,723 editsm →User:BubbleBabis reported by Shadowwarrior8 (Result: No violation): 𐤏
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{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
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\|counter = 491
			\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
	==Example==
	===]===
	<!-- This is an example! Do not leave your report here! -->
	<!-- Please take the time to fill it out so that it has:
	1: Actual diffs (not just versions)
	2) The diffs show that there are no changes between the versions
	This will require you to use the "Compare versions" button.
	This will maximize your chances of getting a quick response. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	] violation on {{Article\|Articlename}}.

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Reported by: ] 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

	'''~~Comments~~:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	*User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. ] 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
			# {{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:'''
	==Violations==
	<!-- Please add new listings at the *BOTTOM* of this page, just before the "Report new violation" header". -->

	===]===

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	] violation on {{Article\|Turkish Cypriot}}. {{3RRV\|-Inanna-}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
	Reported by: ] 08:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	'''Comments''': 3 revert rule means more than 3, so it seems that he is off the hook for now.''']'''<sup>]\|]\|]</font></sup> 18:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	:User has since reverted and has now violated the 3RR. --] 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	===] 2===

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] violation on {{Article\|Bulgarians}}. {{3RRV\|-Inanna-}}:
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

	* ~~Previous~~ ~~version~~ ~~reverted~~ to:		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:

	Reported by: ] 23:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	: Has the situation been resolved, upon seeing ]? ] (]) 12:36, 16 January 2006 (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 />
	::No, it has not. --] 17:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

			] (]) 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.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{AN3\|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating ]es, adding ] information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at ]. ] (]) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	] violation on {{Article\|Stem Cell Research}}. {{3RRV\|Extreme Unction}}:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	Reported by: ] 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:Abusive edit warring over controversial article, user ''should'' recuse himself, otherwise a block ''may'' be required, uncoperative editor, some what abusive, kind of a bully--] 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:I only see three reverts...do you have a fourth? —] <sup>]</sup> (]) 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268163705\|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
			# {{diff2\|1268002110\|18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) please don't revert, and don't start an edit war. even if you are right, please discuss your concerns on my talk page"
			# {{diff2\|1267995715\|17:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267994453\|17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:Actually, not to worry, OnwardsCS. That article has been protected so no more reverts shall occur. —] <sup>]</sup> (]) 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

	::Note that {{vandal\|OnwardsCS}} is a new account who seems intent on changing several stem-cell-related redirects into POV articles. Claims to "going back to consensus" appears specious since there are no talk pages for those redirects...so EU appears to be reverting simple vandalism. Don't know where the abusive part comes in, since there are no messages on the reporter's talk page. --] 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	There is no violation here, as the fourth diff shows an edit not made by ExtremeUnction. ]] 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	] violation on {{Article\|Stem Cell Research}} by {{vandal\|OnwardsCS}}.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:		#
	* 2nd revert:		#
	* 3rd revert:		#
	* 4th revert:		#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Reported by: ]\|<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>]</sub></font> 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Comments:''' The last revert was performed by an anon IP. However, ] confirms via CheckUser that the IP address in question was the same IP address used by ] 12 minutes previously to edit the same article.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	As this user has reported me for a 3RR violation, I have not taken action against this user lest there be accusations of a revenge block. ]\|<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0"><sub>]</sub></font> 17:59, 16 January 2006 (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))
	::I didn't see a warning on the talk page, or its history. Did I miss something?--] 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
			:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
			*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
			*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
			*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
			*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
			*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
			*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
			*:
			*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
			*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{AN3\|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::See above listing. I'm reasonably sure that knowing enough about 3RR to try and report someone is understanding enough that a separate warning is not nessecary. --] 18:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
	::::This is true, I guess I have a tendnacy to be a softy with 3RR and warnings.--] 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
	::Where's the CheckUser evidence? This is pretty obvious, but I'd like confirmation before a block. ]] 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
	:::CheckUser evidence is never published. You have to take my word for it; if you aren't willing to, you can ask one of the other five CheckUsers on en to confirm my findings. ] (]) 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
	::::I didn't need confirmation of the actual IP info, just confirmation that you said something about it. I didn't see a related request on ]. ]] 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

			: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: Blocked 24h) ==
	===]===

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	] violation on {{Article\|Smyrna}}. {{3RRV\|Khoikhoi}}:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Reported by: ] 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''~~Comments~~:'''		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff\|oldid=1268186285\|diff=1268208200\|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	* Revert war with -Inanna-, below. Neither one using Talk. I see that these two have been warring on other pages as well.
			## {{diff2\|1268186883\|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
	* They both appear to have violated 3RR on ], but I don't have the patience to write up a full report....
			## {{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:'''
	===]===
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	] violation on {{Article\|Smyrna}}. {{3RRV\|-Inanna-}}:
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	* Previous version reverted to:
			{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	Reported by: ] 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
	'''Comments:'''
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hemiauchenia}}
	* Revert war with Khoikhoi, above. Neither one using Talk. I see that these two have been warring on other pages as well.
	* They both appear to have violated 3RR on ], but I don't have the patience to write up a full report....
	** -Inanna- has made a ]. Blocking will ensue. ] (]) 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
	*** ] has also told us from his talk page that he suspects that -Inanna- is using ] as a sockpuppet. CheckUser was inconclusive, but other evidence strongly supported the suspicion that -Inanna- was using a sockpuppet, especially as she tried to evade the autoblock twice (see ]). -Inanna- also removed my entry notifying her of the block. Reset block. ] (]) 06:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	===]/]===
	] violation on {{Article\|Germanisation}} by {{vandal\|Molobo}}.

	87.239.90.151 first adds .

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* Previous version reverted to: (87.239.90.151)
			#

	* ~~2nd~~ ~~revert~~: ~~(87.239.90.151)~~		'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	* 3rd revert: (87.239.90.151)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	* 1st revert: (Molobo)

			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.
	* 2nd revert: (Molobo)

	* ~~3rd revert:~~ ~~(Molobo)~~		* 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. ] (]) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 4th revert: (Molobo)

			:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
	* 5th revert: (Molobo)

	~~Reported by~~: ] 00:~~13, 17~~ January ~~2006 (UTC)~~		:]
			:"""
			:] Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages without adequate explanation, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-delete3 --> ] (]) 14:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: Stop warning people when you're edit warring against multiple other editors. ] (]) 15:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: They're up to it again ] (]) 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:""" ] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			: NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics. I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]. There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ] (this article was merged in to the " Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article), which shows the consensus regarding the issue is completely opposite to NQs position, and shows that the tags are unjustified. I am completely entitled to revert any post on my talkpage (which is what NQ means when he says I "tried to delete me reporting them", and I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article and so am not in violation of the 3RR. I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do. ] (]) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Comments''' I've asked for Molobo and 87.239.90.151 be user checked . I would love to hear the result and wait until Kelly Martin is back but he goes right into the next revert crusades and I want to go to bed and not check whatever Molobo put onto my talk page. So basically please have a look at the four reverts and act accordingly. If you also happen to have check user rights, please check the users and if they're the same, you can, of course, take the first three reverts into account. Last but not least, the other anon(s) on Germanisation may well have violated the 3RR, too. ] 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
			::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
			::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
			::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
			::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
			::Genuinely shocking that you're suggesting my blocking, I didn't even go that far with you despite everything and all you're upset with is my supposed unfair edit history.
			::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
			::Weasel words aren't mentioned even once in this discussion. Some discussion is about balance but you couldn't even know my gripe if you just delete my discussion with you.
			::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
			::I edited this out of my report because I didn't think it was explained clearly but as you commented on it, I meant reporting you to you. I can understand the confusion.
			::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
			::3RR is not the only edit warring rule and honestly this is redundant if you just raise protection levels to block any more edits to begin with ] (]) 02:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nv}}. This report is a mess. ] (]) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:What is wrong with the report? That I didn't perfectly follow the template? That doesn't mean a violation didn't take place. I can re-format my report, one moment ] (]) 02:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::{{re\|NotQualified}} Do not "re-format" this report. If you insist on filing a report that is readable, file a new one, but there would still be no violation. Also, do not copy in other users' comments into reports. It's very confusing and hard to follow. You can include them by saying "so-and-so did this" and use a diff to show what the user did. The way you did it made it look like those users had commented on your report. That was the messiest part of the report.--] (]) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I'm still learning how to format on Misplaced Pages, so sorry. I re-formatted before you posted. Why would there be "... still be no violation"? I understand that I shouldn't directly post user comments and should follow template next time, but I am confused at how their conduct is acceptable. 3RR is not the only rule and is largely redundant when I'm accusing the user of raising protection levels after a single revert and then refusing to discuss it when brought up on their talk page. ] (]) 02:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I will try to put my report as brief as possible, so there is no confusion.
			*::::# I add templates to an article with faults
			*::::# The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level
			*::::# I, assuming good faith, go to them in accordance with protocol and show my problems line by line
			*::::# They immediately revert that, justifying it in the revert log by saying I have a "right wing agenda" (I do not) amongst other nonsense. This is even more concerning when most of my so-called "right wing " recent edits are rape gang scandal related.
			*::::# I see that they've actually been reported for the exact same thing a week ago, wiping articles of child sex abuse in the UK. This is a pattern of behaviour of bad faith.
			*::::# Knowing now I'm dealing with a troll with privileges, I go here and try to explain my case
			*::::# I notify the user
			*::::# I am not familiar with all the protocols of Misplaced Pages so my report is messy
			*::::# Their defense is lies, I go line by line saying why. The only crux of their argument is that they technically didn't violate 3RR because instead of reverting anything else they did something far worse and raised the protection level
			*::::# You tell me my report is messy and there's no problem
			*::::I hope I summarised that in a way that makes more sense but I fully acknowledge you know more than me and could correct a mistake in my analysis ] (]) 02:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::They edited the above answer "I assume NQ has interpreted having an edit conflict as me having the powers to raise protection levels, which as a non-admin I have absolutely no powers to do."
			*:::::That seems to be the case, so I apologise for the confusion caused. I still argue however they are in repeat violation of rules around UK rape incidents and I personally think that due to it being a pattern of behaviour there should be at least a warning given, if not a total suspension from editing on rape or abuse in the UK. I do not believe reverting a template is enough for a warning, even given that's generally bad conduct. but refusing to discuss afterwards and furthermore this being a repeat pattern of behaviour makes me question the impartiality and good faith of the editor.
			*:::::I admit, my report could've been formatted better, and I apologise for saying they raised protection when they didn't, that must've been an edit conflict that confused me. They are not in violation of 3RR and as they haven't raised protection but they've acted poorly, repeatedly, and I've refuted their arguments above quite clearly around conduct. I am not calling for a general suspension. I am however at least calling for warning to be given, or better a ban on editing UK rape scandals.
			*:::::I am going to re-add weasel words and balance to the section. ] (]) 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	:I concur. Molobo is the most seasoned revert warrior I've ever met but admins seem to be lenient to his self-professed practice of logging in and logging off when 3RR needs to be evaded. --] \| ] 13:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	===]===

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	] violation on {{Article\|Veselin Topalov}}. {{3RRV\|Dionyseus}}:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Reported by: ] 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268291574\|02:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Genetic influence"
			# {{diff2\|1268272867\|23:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Significant skill issues regarding the ability to read the edit summary and the study itself."
			# {{diff2\|1268269093\|23:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268248948\|21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Rv straight up lying. The source itself asserts a 22% variance in shared environment, 43% in nonshared environment. Stop vandalizing the pages I edit."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Comments: I corrected grammar and added information to the article on Veselin Topalov numerous times. Dionyseus keeps reverting. Evidently he is a fan of this chess player and he feels that any negative information (no matter how relevant) must be ignored. Furthermore, he refuses to acknowledge a comma splice error, which is about as clear a grammatical mistake as one could possibly make.'''
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::I'm only reverting the NPOV that DanielPi insists on inserting. The cheating allegation is a malicious rumor and no one has admitted to starting it. It could have been anyone from an ordinary spectator to even one of the other participants of the San Luis 2005 tournament, such unsourced rumors have no place in Misplaced Pages. As for the small issue of the comma error, I believe DanielPi is simply incorrect. ] 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	::: Both of you violated the 3RR. Any reasons why I shouldn't block you both? Both of you certainly need to be more civil. Agree to drop the issue and resolve it among yourselves, because both of you are at fault. If one of you feels strongly that consensus supports your revision, bring it up to the attention of the community, a noticeboard or on #Misplaced Pages, not continue reverting disruptively and pointlessly. ] (]) 06:38, 17 January 2006 (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)
	:::: Apologies if I have broken the rule. In fairness, it was I that ceased and desisted in this vicious cycle. It's no excuse, but I was not aware of the rule until I started hunting around for adjudication. With regards to the comma splice, this is a simple objective matter, which can be cleared up with a simple check on the ] article. It is clearly bad grammar. As for the allegations of cheating, I'd like to provide the following links to support its inclusion: ], ], ], ], ]. Certainly not all chess players believe that Topalov cheated, but many well respected chess celebrities have taken the allegations very seriously. Furthermore, the accuser is, insofar as it is possible to establish, a participant in the tournament. This was big news in the chess world, and its omission is not justified. Dionyseus and I have tried to resolve the dispute via discussion- as you will see on the discussion page. However, it has clearly hit a road block. I would humbly request arbitration on the matter. As for my worth to the Misplaced Pages community, I cannot claim much; but I did author the original articles on Nemerov and Unsolved Philosophical Problems, which seem to have been reasonably well received. At any rate, I don't want this to get any more combatative than it already is, and I for one would appreciate a third party to aid in settling the matter (about the grammar if nothing else). Thanks. ] 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	::::: Usually if content is disputed, it's better to put an NPOV tag on the article until it is worked out, or tolerate the omission of information if you so wish until it is worked out. Arbitration is a bit extreme. An RFC for the article would be most appropriate in this case. There are many steps in dispute resolution, and arbitration is the last, and most serious one. This is very minor. It doesn't matter whether the content again, is very significant - bring it up to the attention of other editors. Are you working it out? Hopefully there will be no edit wars? If then, the case can be considered closed. It's been past 24 hours. ] (]) 02:43, 18 January 2006 (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)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	:::::: Understood. I have sought informal and third party adjudication. Posted an NPOV tag. Apologies if I did not go about this process in the right way. Not a seasoned pro at this quite yet. I should note, however, that of the two disputes, the grammatical one is not controversial at all. It is unmistakably an error, which really requires only superficial inspection from a third party.] 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	===]===

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	] violation on {{Article\|Belarusian language}}. {{3RRV\|Kuban kazak}}:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	* Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
	* 1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	* 2nd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	* 3rd revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
	* 4th revert:
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Reported by: ] 11:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


	'''Comments:'''
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* The same user violated 3RR before .--] 11:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
	*...but was not blocked before. There are clearly Things Going On Here, but the 3RR break seems clear enough (even though you did something odd with your diffs). I have given a token 1 hour block. Others feel free to review. ] 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

	===]===

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	] violation on {{Article\|Palestine}}. {{3RRV\|Siddiqui}}:

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Previous version reverted to:
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
	Reported by: ]] 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
	:Blocked for 24 hours --] \| ] 20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	'''Comments:'''
	*I saw this revert war in progress from my watchlist. I am not involved in this dispute. ]] 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	* 5th revert: ] 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	===]===
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
			# {{diff2\|1268346280\|08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
			# {{diff2\|1268345229\|08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	] violation on {{Article\|Benjy Bronk}}. {{3RRV\|Accuratemedia}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Reported by: ] <sup>]</sup> 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	*] has repeatedly edited ] removing Bronk's date of birth. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*He may not know about 3RR; Let me leave a note on his talk page, as I should have done first. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	*Having ~~been~~ ~~warned, he's made yet another revert:~~ ~~. I think a block may be in order.~~ ] ~~<sup>~~]~~</sup>~~ 21:26, 17 January ~~2006~~ (UTC)		Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			This article is about a highly anticipated film with a large base of interest. There are hundreds of references available following its teaser and poster release, and it has been confirmed that principal photography has begun. Despite all this, the user ] has draftified the article multiple times. When asked about the policy, he simply forwarded the entire article, which was edited by multiple editors, to satisfy his personal ego. His actions are not collaborative and should be noted. ] (]) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Blocked for 3 hours in the first instance. Feel free to review. ] 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
			*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:That is because {{u\|CNMall41}}'s only possible actual justification for the move warring against a draftification objection is block evasion, and their actions would normally lead to a block. And even if this <em>is</em> block evasion, waiting for the investigation's result would have been advisable. ] (]) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|p}}: Move protection for now, and if redirection is still desired, please start a deletion discussion for it (]). Even if this is sockpuppetry, the page qualifies neither for ] (due to substantial edits by others) nor redirection as a form of reverting block evasion (due to collateral damage). In such cases, it can help to focus on the content and decide independently of whether someone might be a sockpuppeteer. ] (]) 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	] violation on {{Article\|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robin Artisson}}. {{3RRV\|Ravenflight}}:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
	* Previous version reverted to:
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ger2024}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Reported by: —] 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
			# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
			# "Undid revision 1268302350 by Sunnyediting99 (talk) There is no real way to track the origin of all Korean Bongwan. However the fact that Lady Saso gave birth to Hyeokgeose and that Lady Saso came from China was recorded in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. If this does not prove, then most korean bongwan that has foreign origin are not proven as well. None will be valid then."
			# "Undid revision 1268312984 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)Then most Korean surname of foreign origin will not be proven as well, including those from Mongolia, Vietnam, & India. Most of the information from this page is taken from Encyclopedia of Korean Culture in Naver, which was provided by Korean themselves. Also even if Lady Saso came from Buyeo. Buyeo is centered in today's northeast China."
			# "Undid revision 1268314825 by Sunnyediting99 (talk)"
			# "Undid revision 1268318492 by CountHacker (talk) There are only 3 therories, the golden egg is extremely unlikely. The other theory is Buyeo & China. The Buyeo theory does not have much supported evidence. On the other hand the China theory, have some sources supporting it in Encyclopedia of korean culture and also in Korean language and literature dictionary (provided by korean academist) in Naver)"

	'''Comments:'''
	* I'm not sure if 3RR applies to pages in this space. —] 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
	* I explained 3RR on ], in case he/she didn't know. Response was not helpful. ] 21:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
	**I've blocked the user for twenty-four hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
	* Back as ] and ]. —] 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
	* Back as ]. —] 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	===]===
			#: "Please engage with me on the talk page rather than undoing my edits and trying to edit war, first and foremost most of the page is unsourced to begin with, so its not really drawing from the Encylopedia. Additionally, the Samguk Yusa is not a reliable source and its disputed if its Buyeo or China. Finally, Buyeo is generally considered a Koreanic state by academics."
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	] violation on {{Article\|Computer science}}. {{3RRV\|Dzonatas}}:
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* ~~1st~~ ~~revert:~~		Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			Ger2024 has been ] and violated ] (they have as of now made five reverts) and possibly ] despite my direct requests asking them to and to instead discuss with me and @CountHacker on the Talk Page. While they did respond to my efforts to try to talk to them on the Talk Page, they immediately then reverted my edits after they made their comments. The initial edits started when another Misplaced Pages user was verifying and deleting some info on the page (likely for factual accuracy) when the reverts began.
	Reported by: —'']'' 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

			In regards to WP:NPOV, there is a POV push, despite the multiple corrections both I and @CountHacker have issued. We notified the user that the same source they are using from is generally considered historically unreliable because it is a collection of folklore and legends (the source, while a valuable insight into Korean folklore, claims that the founder of the Korean kingdom of Silla was born from a literal Golden Egg, so cannot be taken to be factual because humans cannot be born from Golden Eggs).
	'''Comments:'''
	* We are trying to write a proper introduction for this article but ] make this nearly impossible by reverting to his alternate version, making progress very difficult.
	*: Blocked for 24 hours. —] 03:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

			End of ANI Report: Additional comment I would like to add, reflecting on this a few hours later, I think ] might be relevant, something unusual is that the account has only edited on this specific page (they have made 49 edits total, 47/49 of these edits are all on this page and/or the talk page despite the account being 10 months old), and i found it a bit unusual that the account reverted someone elses edits within after being inactive since based off their ].
	] violation on {{Article\|Robin Artisson}}. {{3RRV\|Rivethead28}}:

	* ~~Previous~~ ~~version~~ ~~reverted~~ to:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	~~Reported by~~: ~~—~~] 01:06, 18 January ~~2006~~ (UTC)		] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	* I believe ] is a sockpuppet of ]. —] 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
	:Amusingly, he seems to believe that we are sockpuppets of each other. Then again, they all do seem to think that you're a woman. ] 01:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
	:*Blocked for 24 hours. ] ] 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Robin Artisson}}. {{3RRV\|Lupinespirit}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

	Reported by: —] 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	* Yet another sockpuppet of ]... —] 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
	** Banned for a week for personal attacks and general jackassery.--] 09:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Georgian people}}. {{3RRV\|212.72.149.84}}:

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

	Reported by: ] 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
	:User warned.--] 08:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Šokci}}. {{3RRV\|Luka Jačov}}:

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

	Reported by: ] 22:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
	:This looks more like a multi party edit war than a 3RR issue. I see two editors who need to be warned. Article is protected as soon as I'm done with warnings.--] 08:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]/]===

	] violation on ]. {{3RRV\|68.7.212.152}} {{3RRV\|66.27.122.84}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:

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

	Reported by: ] 07:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	* There were additional reverts by this user since the 4th. I would have filed this sooner, but I was thrown off at first by their IP change. (The two IP's admit to being the same person but state that there was no intent to deceive.)
	* The user does not put comments on their changes, does not sign in the Talk, and does not seem to care that the text they're removing is properly cited and NPOV. I think this is more a newbie thing than outright malice. However, the apparent motivation is not innocent, either; they want to whitewash Rand by wiping out unpleasant facts.
	* I'd like this person to be educated on the need to avoid edit wars.
	**Warned. remember ]--] 08:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
	**Alienus, I'd like to remind you that you're very close to breaking 3RR. It applies to all non-simple vandalism and self reverts.--] 08:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
	***Thanks for the reminder. I think he's stopped for now, so there won't be a problem. ] 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] violation on ] article, not to mention that he is a possible sockpuppet of ] or ].

	Reported by: ] 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments'''
	* I tried to make this article looks as neutral it can be, but this user reverts all the time. ] 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
	* "Looks neutral" in this case for Bomac means "untrue". His accusations in puppetry are false frivolos slander, and they are most likely influenced by his unwillingness to accept certain truths. ] 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	I've blocked FF for 1 hour in the first instance. Now to look at the other side... ] 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC).
	Wonderful. Ditto block for Bomac. ] 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

	This page is clearly in the middle of a vast edit war, if anyone else cares to comment. ] 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Palestinian exodus}}. {{3RRV\|Zeq}}:

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

	Reported by: —]  <small>]</small> 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	*3 and 4 retain of the but are otherwise identical to the initial version. Zeq has been edit warring over this article for some time, causing it to be protected twice before; three hours after the most recent unprotection, he , claiming (somewhat dishonestly) to be restoring the "pre-edit war version". —]  <small>]</small> 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

	Blocked for 8 hours. Feel free to review. ] 16:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Phoenix Labs}}. {{3RRV\|Michael Snow}}:

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

	Reported by: ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 01:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	*first one is a brand-new edit, not a revert. —]  <small>]</small> 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Phoenix Labs}}. {{3RRV\|Fxer }}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	* 6th revert:

	Reported by: ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 01:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	*



	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith}}. {{3RRV\|Little_Penguin}}:

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

	Reported by: —] • ] • ] 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	*Note users contribs, also note the user was warned of ] prior to making their 4th revert. —] • ] • ] 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
	**Blocked for 24 hours. —] 05:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Ludwig II of Bavaria}}. {{3RRV\|Engleham}}:

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

	Reported by: ] 14:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:''' I have tried to draw this user into the talk page but he ignores me and edit wars, reverting others' edits as "vandalism".
	*I see no violation yet; warnings for everyone; play nice and discuss it on the talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Computer science}}. {{3RRV\|R.Koot}}:

	1st set of reverts:
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	2nd set of reverts:
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:

	Reported by: — ] 15:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	* ] has been warned about 3RR. — ]
	* ] continues to undo any edit by me and other editors that does not satisfy Koot's pov. — ]
	* ] tries to block other users to game the system and make way. See above: — ]
	** I discussed this with ]. I disputed my edits as progressive instead of reverts. The above reverts by ] are clear cut ]. — ]
	* ] has an outstanding need to be blocked under equal treatment as I have so easily been blocked. — ]
	* The page is being disputed, and Koot continues to remove the <nowiki>{{dubious}}</nowiki> tags without further discussion. — ]
	* ] deletes sourced information in favour of original research. See top of CS page. — ]

	The second set is only 3 reverts. There are 4 in your first set, but not in 24h (and they were days ago). I can't see any basis for blocking under 3RR. ] 18:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

	* The reason to block is equal treatmeat. The guidelines say that the blocks should be equal if both users are at fault. ] has concluded that 1st set has four reverts. ], however, did not block ] equally, as that is what should have happened when I was ]. — ]

	* ] stated that was days ago. How could I immediately report the reverts of ] if I was so quickly and easily blocked to make any edit. Surely, there is justification here. There is nothing in the policy that limits when the blocks should take affect from the point of the reverts made. I have a mail from ] that states if it is true that ] violated 3RR, then ] agrees that ] should be also blocked. At the time this post, that block .

	* The guidelines state that a user can be blocked for a fourth block just outside of 24 hours. It is explicit that it does not allow someone to block 3 times in a day and make another revert just outside of that day. In fact, it was over 24 and one half hours duration for four reverts. Surely, this "just out of the 24 hours" implies that the 24th hour is inclusive to the day. — ]

	* I have stated my point here that ] finds it substantial that the 1st set is four reverts. Whereas, those were clearly identical reverts, unlike the ] for which I was blocked. Therefore, the implementation of blocks under 3RR is not consistent. — ]

	* This raises more than substantial concern. — ] 00:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
	**The second set of reverts contains only 3, and the article is protected. Work out your differences on the talk page. We don't do tit-for-tat blocking. ]] 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Palestinian_exodus}} by {{3RRV\|Ian_Pitchford}}:

	* Previous version reverted to: Jan 19 20:51
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	Reported by: ] 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''

	* This ] 2nd (or maybe 3rd) offense ,

	* ] knew there was pending protection on this page ] amd since the protection was for a long time (ArbCom decision) he did his 4th revert just before an admin would protect the page. He tried (hastly) to make it look like an edit bit not a revert so he moved one image and made some mineagless format changes and described his edit as "reformat ; expand refs; retsore sourced content".

	* Not only should the user be blocked for long time, he should not benfit from having the page locked for 5-6 weeks in the exact vesrion he wanted it (this was after all his goal) so the page protection must be converted to the version just before his 4th revert. ] 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
	*Took the liberty of correcting the article link from ] (a redirect) to ]. This does appear to be a 3RR vio, but it's a bit rich for Zeq to be complaining about it, considering how his first action upon returning from his recent 3RR block was to perform exactly the same revert that got him blocked in the first place.
	:As to the protection, well, there's no ''must'' about it; the protecting sysop ''may'' choose to do so (per ]), but doesn't have to. Considering that this is the second 3RR violation on this page in the last two days, and the edit war has been simmering for some time before that, I don't think it's a good idea. —]  <small>]</small> 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	Strikes me that Zeq has an issue with ] and ] deletionism, that Ian Pitchford is simply restoring well sourced content. Either way, the page has been protected and you should work out your content differences on the article's talk page, not by reverting. ] 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	:: I am not going to go into a deep debate with you about this. The fact of the matter is that the article is strongly POV and I have twice offered to stay away from the article for two weeks so that the people who feel strong ownership anout tjuis article can make it NPOV. What you call "restoring well sourced content" is nothing more than what me and other editors complained for long time that does not belong on this article. Several editors <b> in the past </b> have just given up editing this article. Since instead of ganging up on me, you could help make the article NPOV. There is a clear policy about it and it should apply. ] 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	Oh, and re ''blocked for a long time'', 24 hours is in theory the maximum length of a 3RR block; sometimes this is disregarded, e.g. after a user's 10th appearance here, but not on the first offense. —]  <small>]</small> 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	I had some rather unsatisfactory emails with Zeq after his recent block; and as far as I can see IP hasn't been blocked before. OTOH IP seems to have 4 clear rv's (1-3 are clear; but 4 is one too) & I can't quite see why he shouldn't be blocked. ] 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

	he has not been blocked before that is true but this is because in all his and Zero previous violation they were not blocked. It seems that if you are pushing palestinian propeganda on wikipedia and for that you violate NPOV and 3RR you do not get punished, actually you get a reward: The verion with the violation is the one getting frozen and protected. This is very nice and puts an intersting light on Misplaced Pages ability to apply rules equally. On the other one can argue that no one should have been blocked (including me yetrterday) because this whole problem results from two facts:
	* My request yeterday and before to protect the page was not complied with.
	* ArbCom refuse to even say if they will address the issue

	] 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	: Despite disliking Zeq's tone (please stop all these ''must'''s) I still can't see why he shouldn't be blocked (nor do I see why he wasn't blocked last time): blocked for 8h. Feel free to review. ] 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

	:: I am sorry if you don't like my tone. The only thing we "must" do is to apply policy equally. ] 20:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|Anarchism}}.

	{{User\|Hogeye}}:
	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

	Reported by: ] 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	*I have admin powers, but I won't use them on an article I'm editing for content, that said the article could do with protecting again. This user does not edit harmoniously, the longer the ban the better. ] 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	Seems a fair cop guv. Blocked for 24h ] 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	===]===

	] near-violation on {{Article\|Aladdin (disambiguation)}}. {{3RRV\|DreamGuy}}:

	* Previous version reverted to:
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:
	Reported by: ] ] 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	'''Comments:'''
	*Note that the key point is the repeated removal of the link to ], even if other changes were also made in the same edit. This is not quite a 3RR violation to date, no four of these reverts occur within a 24 hour period, but 5 reverts in less than 38 hours seems like excessive reversion to me. As I have been involved in this issue I will not be doign any blocks, even if a technical 3RR violation occurs. ] ] 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Report new violation ==
	Place new reports '''ABOVE''' this header, using the template below. Do '''not''' edit the template itself.
	See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get
	the quickest responses. From the article's History page, '''use ] (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button''' to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted.

	<!-- This is an example! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->
	<pre><nowiki>===]===

	] violation on {{Article\|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV\|USERNAME}}:

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

	Reported by: ~~~~

	'''Comments:'''
	*</nowiki></pre>

	<!-- This is an example! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->

Latest revision as of 20:24, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to note the previous discussion about this particular editor, who has a penchant for creating hoaxes, adding off-topic information about al Qaeda to unrelated articles, and a tendency to steal entire sentences from other articles for their additions may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368#User BubbleBabis. Aneirinn (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

Shecose, to satisfy his personal ego (above and in Special:Diff/1268349248 too) is a personal attack; you too should focus on the content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: