Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<!-- NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->
<!-- dummy edit -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: PageProtected) ==
== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Judith Reisman}} <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Limulus}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 1st revert:
# {{diff2|1268102394|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 2nd revert:
# {{diff2|1268102305|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 3rd revert:
# {{diff2|1268102212|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
* 4th revert:
# {{diff2|1268101573|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Vandalism
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|b|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
This is not an edit war in the traditional sense that there is a dispute with intransigent parties. There was a bit of a tussle between Limulus and 2 editors (including myself) over the section "Naxism and homosexuals", but that appears settled. But because of the tussle Limulus committed 2 reverts. Then a 3rd revert on a different issue. The real problem is that they don't think that the '''bright line''' of 3RR applies to them. They wrote "Fixing the article (e.g. putting refs where they should actually go) is not edit warring." In fact, they were in a mini-edit war with 2 editors over addition of POV content. Right after that statement they ignored my warning and reverted.] (]) 03:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|pe}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
Regarding the linked versions and reverts, first, if one checks the history the one immediately before Lionelt begins editing is not 435129249; I find it interesting that he has selected the edit immediately before mine in which I commented "fixed last bit of damage by suspected sockpuppet Truthinmyheart" (see ]).
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
So we need to look at *435214017* as a starting point.
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|BubbleBabis}}
TheendofLionlet's first batch of edits is
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Given that we are both doing batches of editing (note that I most recently started on the 18th and have been in a bit of a marathon of edits since), I don't see how even if I reverted *all* of that batch of edits (which I did not) that that would count for more than one, but let's look at the specific examples given:
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
* "1st revert" "diff=prev&oldid=435206242"
???? That is the difference between two of *my* edits *before* Lionelt even started! FAIL!
* "2nd revert" "diff=435307849&oldid=435255378"
Lionelt had removed a wikilink to ] and I added it back in with the comment "please keep a link to Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust in this section; The Pink Swastika as per its page is clearly fringe theory WP:FRINGE" BUT then user Nuujinn removed it again in the next edit saying "no, let's keep it nice and flat and neutral, just the facts." At this point (while I disagreed somewhat) I decided to let the matter rest and I did NOT re-add it. This is NOT "a mini-edit war with 2 editors over addition of POV content". So why is Lionelt complaining about something that was resolved in his favor before he got back to editing again and AFAIK without him having to ask for intervention? To prove a rhetorical point here rather than be pragmatic about the community editing process? WEAK.
* "3rd revert" "diff=435311589&oldid=435309087"
The next edit of mine, "Shuffle sections; keep child-related items near top, fix ref issue, title tweak"
This is several changes that are not exactly a rv. Before Lionelt's edits, I had put three sections into a "Fringe views" section. Lionelt had taken those three and another and put them into two new sections. I then put the one back (though not exactly the same way; I felt it needed to be readded as it was suporting the basic theme of its parent-section: "the imperative to protect children from this sort of harm became a driving force in her life.") and split the remainder up differently, modifying the names a bit. I continued to tweak the arrangement in my later edits until I settled on a still different arrangement . The ref issue (mentioned earlier) is definitely NOT a rv; Lionelt had reworded a section in a way that incorrectly sourced a quote to a different ref: that was me fixing a mistake Lionelt had introduced into the article.
* "4th revert" "diff=435383284&oldid=435375292"
Yes! Finally, an honest-to-goodness revert! But wait, look at the comments...
18:45, 20 June 2011 Lionelt (talk | contribs) (44,985 bytes) (→Images of children, crime and violence: what do Reagan & Regnery have to do with this?)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
19:53, 20 June 2011 Limulus (talk | contribs) (45,264 bytes) (Undid revision 435375292 by Lionelt (talk) please see my talk page; Regnery is mentioned later in that section and Reagan has to do with the social conservatives.)
<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 />
(note: my talk page regarding this: ])
] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
21:28, 20 June 2011 Limulus (talk | contribs) (45,219 bytes) (→Images of children, crime and violence: removing "during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan" due to a WP:SYNTH concern by Lionel on my talk page)
: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) ==
So Lionelt breaks a mention of Regnery because he apparently didn't read the whole section and didn't read the refs. But then when he somewhat elaborated a concern with the Reagan mention, I undid that part I had reverted. Sorta rv?
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
Regarding the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: experienced user--didn't template" this is the first time anyone has jumped down my throat like this and it seemed a hostile act for what was IMHO *not* 3. In fact if you look at the times, it seems that he reported me before even trying to talk to me! (and I only noticed this page thanks to NekoBot)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sokoreq}}
FASTILY: regarding "dispute resolution", I don't really know that there is a "dispute" that needs resolving. Obvious errors like the ref issue and the Regnery issue just need fixing. The Reagan issue was resolved between us (before I even knew that a complaint had been filed!) after he explained a concern. It seems like this was reported in haste, though in the future I will have to be more careful in 'counting' reverts (what to me was <3 was >3 to him). So, i guess in summary, if you wouldn't mind, please unlock the page. THX! -- ] (]) 05:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
:Your definition of a revert is defective.
:#You changed "discredit" to "debunk"
:#You changed "wrote in the New Yorker that Reisman holds the" to "recounts a contrary position held by"
:#You changed "Causation of homosexuality" to "As a promoter of homosexuality"
:#You hit undo: obvious. Even though you re-removed Reagan, you left Regnery. It is ''still a revert''.
:Please see WP:NOT3RR. '''None''' of your claims for exemption are valid. You violated 3RR: consider yourself lucky that you did not get blocked. You know, I have nothing against you. I warned you about 3RR in good faith. Your arrogant response on your talk page and subsequent revert in defiance of the warning was probably ill advised. ] (]) 07:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
:I do not support lifting page protection. By their comments above it appears the editor in question does not grasp 3RR thus may continue to violate 3RR. ] (]) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
::I may not fully grok 3RR (and honestly, SYNTH gives me trouble), but (again) how is #1 (where you are pointing to two of *my* edits) a rv at all? In fact, looking at 435255378 you left debunk in... are you trying to say that it is a pejorative in the context of the lede? (that was not my intention) Or the fuller quote from the ref is? (But that's not a rv...) Does this have to do with the banned sock puppet account? *confusion* Why did you remove the first (wikilinked) instance of Regnery, but leave the second? For someone who just started editing () a somewhat mature article, you seem quite easily angered... perhaps the block will help you more than me. Anyway, the article was fortunately locked in a good state and one can always leave notes on the Talk page. If a week-long block is necessary, then so be it. -- ] (]) 09:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
:::A revert is: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Changing just 1 word is a revert, and for the most part the ''reason is irrelevant''. Regarding Regnery, I didn't notice the 2nd appearance. But on first glance, it doesn't look sourced.] (]) 10:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
::::It is sourced- specifically to "Trento, Susan (1992)." which is currently ref #14 and there's a link to a copy of the relevant section on Reisman's own website (as she puts up lots of stuff there about herself). When reverting edits in the future I will attempt to do it all at once rather than in a piecemeal fashion (though I do prefer the latter for editing). This conversation would be more appropriate on the JR talk page though, so if you wish to continue, please do so there. -- ] (]) 17:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment:'''Looks like someone is busy waging their battles by filing ever more reports. Reviewers, please check closely. ] (]) 09:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
:Oh dear, may I ask what's going on? :( -- ] (]) 09:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
# {{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:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Press Your Luck}}
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|E2e3v6}}
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
'''Time reported:''' 22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
Previous version reverted to:
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Winning the game */ ''Press'' was not on during November 1986.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Home Player Spin */")</small>
#
#
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 435683574 by ] (]) I have permission to put this stuff in by another wiki writer. check out discussion.")</small>
#
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 435685614 by ] (]) Thank you for giving me another chance. Bye Bye.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "I should have said Thank you for giving me a "Second Chance". Get it?")</small>
#
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# <small>(edit summary: "This is the last one. please keep it in. The link is not dead.")</small>
he removed my warning for whatever reason
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ]
<u>Comments:</u><br />
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
*'''Comment''': This is a poor report filed by Someguywhosbored. They’re clearly doing their best to hide their obvious flaws. The page in question, ], was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason . Another user has recently restored the stable version of the article . Not to mention the user they are claiming to gain consensus with i.e. Noorullah21 was also warned by an admin .
:PS: Their ] mentality is clearly visible through their essay like replies below, I'd rather refrain from replying back to them. '''<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">]</span> '''<sup>]</sup> 16:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Nice, you didn’t even mention the fact your edit warring here.
*:“ The page in question, History of India, was actually protected indefinitely for 3 days at my request because someguywhosbored was constantly disrupting and destabilizing the article by removing authoritative sources , despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page”
*:wow. All of these points are completely disingenuous. Firstly, if you read the talk page, Flemmish and noorullah both agreed with my edits. Even you eventually agreed that the content should at least be reworded because the sources don’t even follow what’s written on the article. You requested page protection, wrongfully accusing me of edit warring and disruption. And to be clear, it took several replies for you to even acknowledge the points that were made. Even now you’re completely ignoring the points I’ve made in the talk page. All you’ve stated recently is that you’re restoring a stable version. That doesn’t answer any of my concerns at all. The discussion began on my talk page. You ignored and didn’t even respond to any of the points made. There was no discussion on the history of India talk page until I brought it there(because you were ignoring me). And you kept dismissing the points until Flemmish called you out. So don’t act like you seriously tried to discuss this with me. You only bothered talking once you realized that simply reverting the page and wrongfully requesting page protection wouldn’t get your way. And even now you ignored the completely valid reasons for the contents removal.
*:“Also note that they were previously warned by Drmies for the same reason”
*:Again, disingenuous. He’s bringing up a random conversation over a year ago that began over a simple miscommunication error. Drmies stated himself
*:“ That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary”
*:The entire issue was that he didn’t see what I wrote on the talk page because my edit showed up as “no edit summary” even though I could have sworn I left one. Regardless, you’re making this out to be some kind of big problem when in the end, Drmies stated himself that he didn’t disagree with me removing the content. Again, if there was an edit summary, he wouldn’t have reverted. It was just a miscommunication error like I said. And this happened over a year ago when I first started editing. So why are you making that out to be a bigger deal than it is?
*:
*:Regardless, even if you think you’re justified for edit warring, you shouldn’t be edit warring. That’s why I’ve avoided reverting you for a 4th time, so I won’t break 3RR.
*:It’s clear you’re not going to stop making the same changes even if someone reverts you. You haven’t even acknowledged what you’re doing as breaking policy. ] (]) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Also, I’m pretty sure noorullah only reverted once so I have no idea why they received a warning. Regardless, that’s not the main issue here. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{AN3|d}} Garudam, who as the article indisputably comes under ARBIPA, has and seems from his most recent editing history to have actually done so. This is a good idea IMO, as long as he keeps to his word on this. If he comes back early and just resumes the same behavior, at least a partial block from the page would be in order. ] (]) 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
This user has been using a fansite to back up his claims. Fansites are considered an unreliable source, and this one is no exception. ] ] (] - ]) 22:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
*Technically speaking, ] has still not been broken... The editor has been warned once by an IP. So I am not going to block right now until another revert occurs from the user. In case the user doesn't revert again, engage in further discussions, take up ]. In case the user reverts once more in the next few hours, come back, the block will happen. ] ] 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
:And closing as {{AN3|d}} per above. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:39, 24 June 2011 (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)
== ] and ] reported by ] (OTRS) (Result: Event.Horizon.000 one month) ==
'''Users being reported:''' {{userlinks|Event.Horizon.000}} and {{userlinks|Maphobbyist}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
Previous version reverted to:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
* 10th revert:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268186883|14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202556|16:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268202677|16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268203165|16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204621|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204745|16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268204943|16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268205104|16:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Awards System */"
## {{diff2|1268208200|17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Modern times */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
On June 17, ] received a notice that editors are reverting each others' entries without trying to reach consensus. Both editors have ignored my warning and call for constructive collaboration posted on their and the article's talk page and continued to reverse each others' edits. For the record, I have no involvement in the article itself, but act only as an OTRS volunteer. ] (]) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
: '''Malformed''' – The report is misformatted, or does not contain the information required by the report template. Please edit the report and remove any <nowiki><!-- --></nowiki> tags and enter any missing data. Refer to the ] for more information. ~ ] <small>(])</small> 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"
::{{done}} — ] (]) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::'''Comment:''' The header and the diffs are now OK so I believe the report is well-formed. It's a case of long-term warring, since nobody has reverted four times in 24 hours. In my opinion both of the reported parties should be blocked 72 hours and notified under the ] case, since both seem to be interested in the Armenian genocide and they are breaking WP policy by edit warring. (A diff that reverts Armenian material is ). Socking appears possible. ] may also be editing as {{userlinks|178.78.187.155}} and as two other IPs, judging from Maphobbyist's contributions. Here are the userlinks for Maphobbyist: {{userlinks|Maphobbyist}}. Both parties do a lot of reverting. ] (]) 17:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Per ] I'd suggest that Event.Horizon.000's block be for one month. He has already been confirmed by checkuser as a sockmaster and has just returned from a 72 hour block. ] (]) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Because I reverted the ] material the blocked ] ] / (not unblocked) ] added in the ] and ] articles, he got angered by this, and is now erasing any editions I make indeed in any article for no apparent reason, except due to a gruge it seems. This user also has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars. (]) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Result:''' ] is blocked one month for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. ] has been semiprotected. ] (]) 01:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
== ] reported by ] (Result: warned) ==
{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Decimal}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Gisling}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}
Previous version reverted to:
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
*
* 1st revert:
*
* 2nd revert:
*
* 3rd revert:
* and ()
*
* 4th revert:
*
* 5th revert:
*
* 6th revert:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
#
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
User reverts against four other users (], ], ] and ) a version which is untenable. Discussions on talk fruitless. ] (]) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|warned}} Clearly edit warring, and clearly aware of 3RR having been blocked before, but I don't see a clear enough warning here. Continuing the edit war and or insults after the warning should be grounds for a prompt block.] 19:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
* 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)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Fountainviewkid}}
:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
:]
:"""
:] 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)
This user has been blocked for 3RR many times, and his edit warring on this page has caused the page to be protected two times prior. Simply protecting the page for the third time is unlikely to be a deterrent from further edit warring. ] (]) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
:This is a "new" IP at an article which has been struggling with vandalism. I am trying to keep the IP from deleting whole section of the article. We need to use the Talk page rather than delete enmasse. Also the IP has violated 3RR as well, though it looks like it may be multiple IP's making the same edit (possible the same person)?--] (]) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
I might also add that the IP keeps trying to add unsourced allegations that a church leader resigned his ministerial credentials in spite of no evidence saying otherwise. Especially since this is BLP there needs to be a credible source saying such a statement and there isn't. All the evidence suggests the opposite.--] (]) 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
::::I'm sorry. Fountainviewkid seems to not understand how ministerial credentials are issued in the Adventist church. They are given to ministers of a specific conference and continue only as long as an individual is employed in a pastoral capacity by that conference. It is ''not'' the same as ordination. By resigning his employment with the Michigan Conference, anyone with knowledge of the Adventist system knows Pipim resigned his credentials (not his ordination) as well. ] (]) 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
:::::That's not entirely true. Pipim resigned his employment, but if he were to be employed by another conference he would have his credentials. The statement was very misleading and provides no evidence. Provide some reliable source about Pipim losing his credentials. And don't make it "synthesis" either.--] (]) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::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.
::::::Actually, yes it is. If he was employed by a different conference, that conference would issue him new credentials under their conference.
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
] (]) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::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.
:::::::Again provide some reliable sources showing Pipim had his credential resigned. When you provide the reliable source we can add it and the problem is solved.--] (]) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
:The article has been struggling with loads of promotional language that multiple individuals have attempted to remove. Unfortunately, Fountainviewkid continues to insist on including said promotional language that multiple editors have noted and accuses those attempting to trim it of vandalism. ] (]) 20:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::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.
::Oh really new IP? You know how the article is struggling? And yet your first edits were within the last hour? Yes there are issues, but those are best handled via the Talk page. You seem to be more experienced and should know that, of course you may have other accounts. I am trying to keep the article from being vandalized by having whole sections removed. Sections which include some reliable sources I might add. It's vandalism to make those kind of edits without consensus, discussion, or a very very valid reason. Simply not liking certain terms does not justify wholesale removal of paragraphs.--] (]) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::"I have also only reverted once today on the "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom" article"
:::That is not justification to edit war. ] (]) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::That is not justification to vandalize--] (]) 20:15, 23June2011 (UTC).
::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)
'''Comment'''TheIPseems to be a disruption-only account. ] (]) 20:22, 23June2011 (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) ==
], if these disputes are best handled through the talk page, why have you not attempted to use the talk page yourself? Also, it is '''not''' vandalism to remove sections as you described above. A "very very valid reason" is a very subjective term, to the point that '''any''' edit that removes content could be considered vandalism by at least one editor. Simply not liking an edit does not make it vandalism. can in no way be considered vandalism, were instances where the IP removed unsourced content, which you restored, which also do not fall under the definition of vandalism. is not exempt from 3RR, as it does not meet the criteria of ''Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense.'' as can be seen with the , as an explanation ''was'' given. Misplaced Pages's rules on what falls under vandalism are very narrow for a reason. - ]] 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not saying one editor is "wrong" and one is "right", and I personally disagree with the IPs edits, but ] does not have a "I'm right" exception, especially with when there is no attempt to use the talk page. - ]]
::I have used the Talk page. Check out the sections that are being removed. They include some reliable sources. The IP is removing them it appears more out of POV reasons than anything else. It has nothing to do with mean not "liking" an edit. I still see it more as vandalism since again I argue while some of the edits have merit, others are far too broad to be considered "constructive". While that may be too harsh of a term I guess I could call the edits "extremely disruptive". Either way the IP is adding statements that are not reliably sourced, removing reliable sources, and deleting whole sections that serve a valid purpose in the article. I might also add that the IP itself has violated 3RR, and suspiciously looks similar to another IP that was editing right before. I'm not saying there should be an "I'm right" exception, and you're right that I probably should have been over here reporting the IP for disruptive editing. If you look at the content under dispute, the IP however is clearly in the wrong in how it is editing. Yes maybe I should have reverted so much, but I just wanted to protect the page from what I see as "vandalism" from a disruption only account. Look at the IP's history.--] (]) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The whole resignation situation, Facebook source, and other edits the IP is trying to put in are discussed at length on the Talk page.--] (]) 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
*'''Comment''' I've requested the page's full protection at ]. Hopefully in lieu of issuing blocks on both sides, so that the edit warring will cease, and talk page discussions will result (something that may not happen if blocks are issued). - ]] 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks. I've started a section on the Talk page called "IP's editing". Yes that may not be the best title, but I have my view of the situation. Hopefully others will comment. Page protection should help.--] (]) 20:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::'''Note''' Page has been full protected. - ]] 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::This is the third time the page has been protected due to Fountainviewkid's blind reverting. It needs to stop so everyone can collaborate on improving the article. ] (]) 20:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::And this is your first edit to wikipedia apparently. Please explain. Thanks, ] (]) 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:*{{AN3|b| 2 Weeks by ]}} + <span style="color:#5B8AAE">] <sup>] // ]</sup></span> 21:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
*Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that '''everyone''' of these IPs who appear at Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, edit war, and then disappear, seem to have an editing pattern, temperament, and familiarity with policies uncannily reminiscent of a certain edit warrior recently gone inactive? – ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
**I think the case hasn't been presented in the right forum, yet. Since CheckUser is fairly useless, we need to request a "behavioral analysis" of all these experienced SPA IPs and our favorite "edit warrior recently gone inactive". The only person in the world who cares about this stuff as much as Fountainviewkid is BelloWello. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Campaign for "santorum" neologism}} <br />
# {{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:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Editor and administrator ] earlier today dropped a congenial reminder on my page about the ] article and how I had come up against the strictly interpreted 3RR rule. My request here is really just a pre-emptive request that admins look carefully at the '''''tone of editing''''' for the time being, more than the strict number of edits with regard to this specific article.
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
As reported in the ], this article has gotten a massive amount of attention lately, and overall I would say that most of us are working to improve this article.
:'''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)
]
:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
Simply going by a strict 3RR would most likely interfere with natural give and take and flow. Also most editors are frequently checking in at the Talk page and discussing edits in line with a vibrant ] cycle. So all in all, I think we have a good flow going and I would hate to see it ruined by a zealous admin enforcing process for sake of process. To be clear, I'm not saying that edit warring be ignored, or that 3RR be ignored, just an understanding that LOTS of edits are occuring and people are moving forward and improving the article, and judicious enforcement will most likely work best for now. -- ] (]) 06:00, 24 June 2011 (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)
:As nobody is being reported here, I think this might be more appropriate on the ]. - ]] 06:02, 24 June 2011 (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) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
*{{AN3|d}} Not a report. This kind of post belongs at ]/]. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|comment}} Thanks. Moved to Administrator's Noticeboard. ] (]) 06:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: No Violation) ==
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Speculation about Mona Lisa}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kvvvvxvvvvv}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|1268310745|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
# {{diff2|1268310470|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268310062|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268308804|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
# {{diff2|1268308036|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
* 8th revert:
* 9th revert:
* 10th revert:
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page move-protected) ==
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
This is an ongoing dispute regarding the so-called "Roni Kempler theory" introduced to the page by user ] (Kempler spelled backwards) earlier in the year (see talk on article page). It now appears the above user (whose page has been marked ] by another editor) is attempting to insert the same theory despite well-worn explanations by several editors, including myself, on the WP policy against ]. It seems we have all attempted various means to diplomatically resolve the dispute, but the user, under his various names (] is likely another via ), simply will not listen.--] (]) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
*{{AN3|nve}} -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::So the editor, under his/her multiple usernames, may add their OR ad infinum until their fingers curl up with paralysis with no recrimination?--] (]) 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:::If that is the case, then this is the wrong forum to request administrative intervention. Please do so at ] instead. -''']''' <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Will do, thanks.--] (]) 01:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Shecose}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected ) ==
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Iyengar}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|S a narasimhan}}
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
# {{diff2|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:'''
Previous version reverted to: :
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
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)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*I am going to advise that we delay any action here until ] is resolved. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The user had been engaged in edit wars and high levels of vandalism, by reverting other's contributions that are wells sourced. "user:s a narasimhan" removed highly authentic sources(Government publications, online books by famous University Publications, Online books of renowned neutral party authors, etc). Except his last edit , all other previous vandalising edits were unexplained. I havent mentioned his other vandalising edits. Please check his contributions. The user had always disapproved of the authenticity of "source materials", and had urged me to edit based on "What one holds to be true" , and had denied wiki' policy of "Verifiability, not truth". Accepting the user:s a narasimhan's request for discussion, i had discussed the issue in the talk page. But the user gave no repsonse, and continued with his vandalising edits. In his last vandalising edit here:, the user had contributed an untrue discriminatory information without any source. In one sentence he had mentioned "'''though they consider Ahobila mutt as inferior because Ahobila mutt incorporates lots of Tamil worship in its rituals.'''" Saying that "'''one is superior/inferior to the other, and saying a language is inferior'''" is highly prohibited here, but the user had used such terms in his contributions. None of his contributions were sourced. However the info' he had provided is untrue because the geneteic tests were done on "Ahobila mutt" group, as the test was taken from "Kurnool district(incorporating ahobilam), and the individuals' genes were similar to punjabi aryans. He should be blocked. But he's getting away with vandalism, as he calls for discussion, in his revert comments, but fails to discuss anything in the talk. Although he calls for consensus, he continues to make vandalising edits, even before a discussion, and has not provided a valid discussion in the talk page. Check the article's talk. "User:s a narasimhan" has also repeatedly disapproved of wiki' policy ], inspite of the fact that i've adequately explained wiki's policies to him in the talk page. Check this message here, which he{sa narasimhan) posted on my talk page: . He is consistently denying the authenticity of "Neutral party sources(online articles), and is repeatedly urging me to edit based on "observance & empathy". How could this be possible in wikipedia??. The user has clearly disobeyed and violated every basic policy of wikipedia editing, and should be blocked. Sometimes, he just does not choose the undo option, but changes the previous edit, by editing it manually. Please help. The user is also including polemics in main article, rather than in the talk page. ] (]) 09:49, 25 June 2011 (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)
:Stop your forum shopping (your SPI case came back as unconnected) and follow the procedures of dispute resolution as I've mentioned to you on my talk page and on the article talk page. The page is protected, discuss on the talk page, ] or follow other processes at ]. This has gone on for long enough. —]''']''' 09:53, 25 June 2011 (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)
Yes. But the user i have reported had been removing source materials constantly, calling them "not reliable" , and had repeatedly committed vandalism , and for once, he had contributed a highly discrminitory information , as mentioned above. I've discussed it already. Most of his reverts were unexplained. But the user is repeatedly asking me to deny the authenticity of "source contents", and is asking me to edit based on empathy, i guess. How can a contribution like that be allowed here?? Expecting an appropriate result. Also, the spi case where the registered users were compared, was unconnected. But i'm sure the user had used anotgher(Ip), to win the edit war. But ips are not linked to names. Will certainly read the instructions from your talk page. Thank You. ] (]) 10:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::Apologies, I withdraw that. I wasn't aware of it, and it happened in the heat of the argument. ] (]) 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*I realize the policy states, ''An editor must not perform more than three reverts'', right? '''This is three, not more than three.''' It shows the desperation. ] (]) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{u|Shecose}}, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ] (]) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
:{{an3|p}} prior to report. —]''']''' 10:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <br />
# "Undid revision 1268223854 by CountHacker (talk)"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Stho002}}
# "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)"
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
Previous version reverted to: {{diff2|435776616|08:00, 23 June}}
#: "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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
Taken from the i had submitted when I should have submitted here.
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.
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
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).
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{diff2|435375608|3RR warning on 00:47, June 21}}
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.
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: {{diff|Talk:Four-dimensionalism|436112712|436110583|Article talk page}} (see ]).
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 ].
<u>Comments:</u>Stho002 has been editing tendentiously as the sole opponent of the consensus. He was given {{diff2|435375608|3RR warning on 00:47, June 21}} and reverted 5 more times directly thereafter. Please note, on his user talk, {{diff|User talk:Stho002|435593873|435589444|he admits}} that he reverts using his IP address, ], so his edit history doesn't look bad. Please let me know if I copied any diffs wrong, {{ph|Four-dimensionalism|(page hist)}}. Thanks.—] 09:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)<br />
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Filer informed) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|AC/DC}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hoponpop69}}, {{userlinks|Bretonbanquet}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Novak Djokovic}} <br />
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Theonewithreason}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
#'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:and
#
#
#
] <small>]</small> 14:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
* {{AN3|p}} Nobody has edited the article since the 3RR warnings above and nobody has broken the letter of 3RR, but all parties here are experienced enough that I expect that they are well aware of the ]. Please take a moment to re-read the policy regardless, and avoid future edit wars over minor issues of presentation on an FA. If matters are not resolved before protection expires in one week or if ] is reached before then, please make a request at ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 15:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
(e/c) Neither of us have breached 3RR, and I don't really see the helpfulness in someone warning me about 3RR on an issue where I have already notified the other user of 3RR and asked him to discuss the matter. Furthermore, there have been no edits to this article between Mlpearc issuing both of us with warnings, and this report being filed. I have reverted this guy 4 times in 4 days, and got warned about 3RR. Do me a favour.
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
Hoponpop69 made a change to the article which I disagreed with - on a specific point that had been stable for over 8 years - and I reverted him. He continued to revert back, at which point I left the article at his preferred version and started a discussion on his talk page and the article talk page, urging him to discuss the matter. A discussion took place involving other users, during which Hoponpop69 called me and other editors "foolish" , "dense" and "lacking in intellect" . We ignored that, and the matter now seems to have been resolved, with another editor restoring the original version. Hoponpop69 meanwhile made another change to a different part of the same article, and I reverted him again. Some reverting went on between us and another editor as well, while I asked Hoponpop to discuss it. He seems to think that a change can be made to an article and then everyone else has to prove him wrong because as far as he's concerned, his edit was just common sense. It doesn't work like that. I continued to discuss on his talk page and he ignored it, reverting again, threatening to report me if I reverted him So it's "I'm not discussing this - don't revert me or I'll report you". He also accused me of reverting every edit he makes, which is patently not true and an assumption of bad faith. That is unacceptable. Why do other editors have to start discussions every time Hoponpop69 wants to make a change that is contested? The onus is on him to justify his change, not on the rest of us to justify the status quo. Furthermore, why should I be obliged to leave the article at his preferred version (again) and start another discussion when he has openly admitted that he is refusing to discuss the problem? I would have reported him myself, but since he threatened me with further action, I thought I'd trigger that further action in order to bring about a resolution. Thus my final revert, and my first in 2 days. Before that could happen, Mlpearc got involved with templating experienced editors without bothering to actually check through the discussion and the whole history of the problem. ] (]) 15:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::Why don't you just drop it and move on ? I'm <nowiki>{{done}}</nowiki> Good luck. ] <small>]</small> 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:::So the guy who shouts the loudest, throws some insults around and bends the rules always wins? It's about a principle. Cheers, ] (]) 15:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Harvey Milk}} <br />
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Jimjilin}}
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? ] (]) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
:{{u|Theonewithreason}}, you could have used the edit summary to explain why your editing was exempt from the edit-warring policy. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:; closing. ] (]) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked indefinitely ) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sillypickle123}}
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
# {{diff2|1268583865|14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|1268451301|21:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268450870|21:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268449472|21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
# {{diff2|1268448980|21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1268447335|21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!"
# {{diff2|1268463321|22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{diff|oldid=1268447335|diff=1268451519|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sillypickle123}}
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Jimjilin is attempting, I believe, to insert an irrelevant fact that Milk's partner at this point of his life was 16 years old and therefore slanting information to make it seem as if Milk was a pedophile. The source used for this does state that McKinley was 16 at the time he met Milk, but that McKinley had left his home in Kentucky or Tennessee, where his family was very religious, and was seeking out gay relationships in New York. Within the pages Jimjiln has cited for McKinley's age is a thorough explanation that McKinley left his home because he was gay and that he had come to New York "to suck cocks". Seriously, that's the opening line of the chapter. Milk met McKinley when McKinley was already involved with Milk's friend and theater producer ].
* {{AN3|b| indef}} <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* Harvey Milk is a Featured Article. No other partners Milk had have their ages included in the article because it's irrelevant. No reliable biography on Milk has ever suggested he was a pedophile, including the one cited by Jimjilin. I urged Jimjilin to start a talk page thread to discuss this if he thinks the issue has merit, and he did, but then inserted the information into the article again. Then accused me of censoring the truth. This smacks of POV and UNDUE. --] (]) 16:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saving Grace (Philippine TV series)}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Winaldcruz088}}
'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
# {{diff2|1268697942|02:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268688649|01:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
# {{diff2|1268687321|01:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
# {{diff|oldid=1268684554|diff=1268686155|label=Consecutive edits made from 01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) to 01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}}
## {{diff2|1268685840|01:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
## {{diff2|1268686155|01:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Guest cast */"
'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
# {{diff2|1268688594|01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "]Created page with '== January 2025 == ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> You didn't read the ] carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
# {{diff2|1268690605|01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268694009|02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
# {{diff2|1268695553|02:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Credit for additional casts */ Reply"
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
The user was not following the ] correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! ] (]) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. ] (]) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
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.
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.
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 sourcedcontentious 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.
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)
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"
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 .
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)
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
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.
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)
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.
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."
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I realize the policy states, An editor must not perform more than three reverts, right? This is three, not more than three. It shows the desperation. Shecose (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Shecose, an editor must not perform twenty reverts either, yet that doesn't mean nineteen reverts are fine. Edit warring isn't limited to violations of the three revert rule. You both have edit warred. The edit war has ended since, and no action is needed here; if any action is taken, that's via the sockpuppetry investigation, but we don't need to keep the edit warring report open in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
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."
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."
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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
I also find the baseless message the user had left me personally intimidating . Threats to report my 3RR message . Is this how unwelcoming Misplaced Pages is supposed to be? PhilipPirrip (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) "←Created page with '== January 2025 == Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You didn't read the MOS:TVCAST carefully before rethinking about your edits carefully. IMDB is not a credible source to use for TV series. So, stop putting uncredited cast members if there's no reliable sources. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user was not following the MOS:TVCAST correctly as the user continue to put uncredited cast members without reliable sources, which are not credited from the TV series. I tried to convince the user to stop and answered questions from what the user asked, but the problem is still ongoing. JRGuevarra (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
YOU ARE JUST BEING BIASED!!!! THERE ARE LOT OF CASTS BEING ADDED IN TV SERIES WIKIPEDIA ARITCLE WITHOUT BEING CREDITED IN THE TV ITSELF BUT THEIR NAMES ARE THERE. YOU ARE JUST BEING SELECTIVE!!! Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
THERE ARE SECTIONS IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT NECESSARY CITATIONS OR LINKS AS LONG AS THEY APPEARED IN THE SERIES THAT IS FINE TO PUT THEIR NAMES THERE TO BE CREDITED. Winaldcruz088 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Update this page
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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)
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)
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)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (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 Huddersfield sex abuse ring, you may be blocked from editing. FoxtAl (talk) 14:58, 5 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)
Blocked indefinitely Jauerback/dude. 14:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
