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

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

Revision as of 04:21, 21 July 2012 editDave Dial (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,119 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:26, 9 January 2025 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,846 edits →User:Ger2024 reported by User:Sunnyediting99 (Result: ): sock indeffed
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	<noinclude>{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]{{User:MiszaBot/config
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~190~~		\|counter = 491
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

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

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1896 Eastern North America heat wave}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|LibStar}}

			'''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. -->
			#
			#
			#
			#

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

			'''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. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> These two editors have been the subject of multiple edit wars, all of which have the same pattern as this one: ] attempts to add content and then ] arbitrarily decides that content must be removed. See ], ], ] for a small flavor of LibStar's incessant edit warring, a pattern of abusive edit warring that has persisted for years unabated.<br />

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	] (]) 03:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	*LibStar and RAN {{AN3\|b\|31 and 48 hours}}, respectively. ] (]) 04:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	:* Why did Richard get a longer block in this case? It seems quite clear to me that this is a long-running harassment of him by LibStar. Block for edit warring, fine, but why is his longer? Libstar's block should be longer, as he is the aggressor. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	:*I agree that the problem here is LibStar and that the punishment for RAN is not appropriate here. Once LibStar finds that he disagrees with another editor, his preferred tactic is edit warring accompanied by confrontational edit summaries that appear intended to bully and provoke the other editor. I could provide several dozen more, but some edit summaries from yesterday include: , , , It's either LibStar's way or the highway, and while RAN has been trying to add sourced content to articles, LibStar falls into his "Dr. NO!" mode and starts edit wars to impose his arbitrary preferences; It is clearly LibStar who is being disruptive, not RAN. I think modifying RAN's block duration to be much shorter while extending LibStar's block to several days/weeks would be far better justified by the case history of provocation by LibStar. In addition, an interaction ban should be imposed on LibStar forbidding interaction with RAN, as it appears that these wars are unilaterally begun by LibStar and never the other way around. ] (]) 12:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	:*I too am curious why RN's block was longer. ] (]) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	::*Probably because RAN's block log is a mile long, while this is Libstar's 1st? ] (]) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::*LibStar has been Wikihounding RAN for years and a look at the edit history here shows that RAN is simply trying to add reference to articles while LibStar arbitrarily removes portions of the sources and then blames RAN for disruption. As LibStar stated in appealing his block, he is capable of productive editing, but he has been in a prolonged conflict with RAN and ceaselessly provokes him. The current block is unlikely to get LibStar to cool down, walk away and end the bullying in edit summaries that just yesterday took the form of <b>, , , </b>, while RAN has tried to avoid being baited no matter how hard LibStar tries to pick a fight. LibStar should have been blocked long ago and an interaction ban with RAN put in place; 31 hours is hardly long enough. ] (]) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Tarc is basically right about my rationale. If there's a larger problem of hounding going on, this isn't really the venue to resolve that; ] would be. ] (]) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::::<s>Why would ] be the right venue?</s> I think you meant ]. - ]] 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::I was also utterly confused when I clicked on ]. I agree that LibStar has been duly notified that his actions are inappropriate and that if these same behaviors start reappearing that ] should be the next step for reaching a more thorough solution to end the edit warring and bullying that have been LibStar's trademark. ] (]) 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	I'm happy to live out the block and indeed engage in future to prevent edit warring. AlanSohn claims above that Richard Norton is totally innocent here. Richard could have stepped away and ignored my edits and sought advice but simply decide to play in the game, look at his ANIs he as a history of conflict. it takes 2 to edit war, and given Richard's long history of being blocked, failing to engage, ignoring admin sanctioned warnings, I am painted solely as the bad one? I've never been blocked before in years of editing nor had multiple ANIs against me or problems with multiple editors like Richard. Alansohn you may want to re examine your view that Richard is more innocent than a baby. Someone made a good point on my talk page that we both needed to engage and discuss. Richard and I both failed. ] (]) 11:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	:This is a rather blatant case of persistent Wikistalking / Wikihounding and the rather sad fact is that you consider yourself to be the victim here. The LibStar modus operandi in this edit warring spree is to jump into an article that RAN has edited -- one that you have never edited before and have no connection to whatsoever -- arbitrarily removing sourced content that RAN has added, accompanied by some taunting in the edit summary. Just looking at the past few days turns up some classic examples of your edit warring / taunting:
	:*]
	:**
	:**
	:*]
	:**
	:** - Yes, this was repeated, and as if adding "thanks" makes the edit warring OK
	:**
	:You've already been blocked here for edit warring ( far too briefly, in my opinion) and sadly it appears that you still believe that you are absolutely right and everyone else absolutely wrong. I think that based on this evidence (and there's tons more just like this) that an interaction ban should have been imposed as well as a 0RR restriction on removing material from articles. Hopefully the block has provided some much-needed time for introspection and that further action won't be necessary in the future as long as this style of edit warring / bullying ends. ] (]) 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	:: Alan, I will happily acknowledge that I edit warred here and that this should be avoided in future. I do not believe I was totally right and everyone else wrong as you claim. Can I ask a very specific question: do you think Richard is totally innocent? Many have pointed out that it takes 2 to edit war. simply restoring disupted content is in fact edit warring. Is Richard totally innocent in failing to discuss disputed content and refusing to engage like me? Do you acknowledge his longer block is due to his long history of blocks for various past disputes, failing to engage others. I have taken on board your comments, time for you to ] as the dispute is over. If you an issue with me please raise on my talk page. Happy to discuss. ] (]) 23:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			Chance997 has been repeatedly and persistently editing the plot summary for the page on this film to include the words "<code><nowiki>a ] containing an ] alien ]</nowiki></code>" (with those hyperlinks) as opposed to "a meteorite containing an alien hedgehog", in addition to other similar additions of unneeded wikilinks for common words such as "fox", "warrior", "sheriff" and "mad scientist". They have also made other superfluous additions, such as unneeded additional words specifying characters' physical characteristics (adding the words at one point, which is unnecessary for the plot summary as, not only is this description trivial fluff, these characteristics are shown in the film poster and in the top image on the dedicated article for the ]). These changes have been reverted multiple times, by myself, ] and ], citing ] as the reason for reverting them. I have attempted to engage them in discussion both on their user talk page, and on the article's talk page, as has Carlinal, and they have been unresponsive, and simply continued in restoring their preferred version. After warning and informing them about the guidelines on edit warring, plot summary length, and the need for communication, I have come here to report them for edit warring after they have continued to stonewall me and the other editors on the article. ] '''''<small style="font-size:70%;">(])</small>''''' 12:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

			I'll just add that this editor has been troublesome for quite some time. I just had to do a mass revert at ] to remove excessive overlinking. They have so far refused to respond to any warnings at their talk page. ] (]) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Pakistan Zindabad}} <br />
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Justice007}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|ToadGuy101}}
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			# {{diff2\|1267771905\|16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267757010\|14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])Stop whining about him"
			# {{diff2\|1267751151\|14:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267747621\|13:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	The user is continuously edit warring without taking policies like ] and ] into consideration. I have also requested temporary full protection of the page. He is continually adding wrongly phrased controversial statements just because ]. ] ] ] 15:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267751597\|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
	*{{AN3\|nv}} ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			# {{diff2\|1267301347\|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Secular Islam Summit}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Kwamikagami}}

			User started the talk page thread themselves after their infobox change was reverted twice on 4 January, and has responded there, but after telling other editors that change requiring consensus "isnae how Misplaced Pages works" today they have gone back to reverting it again. ] (]) 18:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1000mods}} <br />
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mindxeraser}}
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert: (explaining because this is the only one not clearly marked as a revert in the edit summary: in this edit, Kwami removes material zie has been unsuccessfully trying to remove for some time, after failing to gain consensus to qualify the statement by adding original research about the person in question)
	* 5th revert:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	These are only the 5 reverts in a 24-hour span; Kwami has been trying to make these edits without consensus for longer.

			'''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 edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: : In this talkpage edit, which Kwami saw and responded to before making the fifth edit above, I warn hir that zie is at 4RR and strongly advise hir against continuing to revert.

			'''Diff 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: most recently ]

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	This isn't the first time that Kwami has hit 5RR at this article - another time, it was 5RR with ]. See also ], where I begged for administrative help in order to prevent precisely this from happening.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	–] (] ~~⋅~~ ]) 15:32, 18 ~~July~~ ~~2012~~ (UTC)		{{AN3\|b\|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
	:Serious BLP concerns, with Roscelese's stated idea that libel or slander is okay if we can demonstrate in a RS that someone said it. Her latest argument was that it's okay to call a group atheists when there are devout people in it, if the devout are a minority. BLP issues, like copyright issues and vandalism, are exempt from 3RR. This is an issue which we've been making progress with on the talk page, and has been resolved to the point where Roscelese is pushing at the margins, like using quotes of events from someone who has no knowledge of them (because the opinions were expressed before the events took place). — ] (]) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Fernanda Torres}}
	::Kwami is not a new user and knows quite well how BLP works, and it isn't about hitting 5RR in an attempt to remove reliably sourced material that is critical of someone's political views (which is what the contested material is about, despite Kwami's false claims that it's about something else). BLP ceases to have any value as a policy when it becomes a catch-all defense of edit warring, original research (about living people!), and refusal to talk, compromise, or heed consensus. –] (] ⋅ ]) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
	:::Please point out this consensus, since no-one else is able to see it. — ] (]) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}}. It seems clear to me that this dispute had absolutely nothing to do with protecting possibly libelous material against a living person. ] (]) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Iran}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1267808569\|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Solhjoo}}
			# {{diff2\|1267807858\|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267807213\|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806982\|20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
			# {{diff2\|1267806103\|20:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- 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\|1267807698\|20:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267808131\|20:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing (])"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to 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:

	<!-- 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~~> <br /~~>		<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
			{{AN3\|b\|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	Solhjoo is repeatedly deleting links to "Pashto" and "Pashtuns" from the article Iran although it is against the reference in the info box (where is cited, which shows Southern Pashto is spoken natively by 113,000 in Iran, which is a higher number than the Talysh speakers and is comparative to the other languages mentioned). The same user made the same irrational change in June too. These repeated changes obviously seem nationalistic vandalism. ''']]]''' 16:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|nve}} ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
	*{{ec}}{{AN3\|d}} - there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider ]. Also, I'd like to point you to ] and ]. ] (]) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|~~Dark~~ ~~Ages (historiography)~~}} ~~<br />~~		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|166.250.71.30}}, also editing as {{userlinks\|166.250.71.147}}

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

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			# {{diff2\|1267452946\|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	* 1st revert:
			# {{diff2\|1267525585\|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert:

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
			# {{diff2\|1267644988\|01:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (])"
			# {{diff2\|1267646582\|01:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */ Reply"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267699885\|diff=1267736737\|label=Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) to 12:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Vestrian24Bio}}
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|UNITA}}
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2012 Burgas bus attack}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1994 AMIA bombing}} <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|1994 London Israeli Embassy attack}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|207.204.180.50}}

			'''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\|1268102471\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102394\|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102305\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268102212\|04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268101573\|04:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	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:'''
	IP is removing same sourced info from three articles and edit warring on all three. Has been blocked twice prior. His talk page is replete with previous warnings about edit warring.

	<!-- 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> Vandalism
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			:{{AN3\|b\|3 years}} The range {{rangevandal\|5.187.0.0/21}} by {{noping\|Ahect}} ] (]) 22:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<!-- 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:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ahmed al-Sharaa}} <br />
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|BubbleBabis}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	:The IP address engaged in the same type of vandalism against me on a page relating to today's attack in Bulgaria. I looked in his edit history, and he appears to have done this for many terror attacks. I will give a case in point.
	:Consider the 1994 London Israeli Embassy Attack. On this page, in the infobox under <i>suspected</i>perps, "pro-Iranian extremists, allegdly linked to Hezbollah" is written. Does anyone deny they were suspected? Of course not. A quick glance at the article reveals that both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence blame the attack on them. Yet the IP address reverted the edit , so that perpetrators were written as "unknown" and there was no line for suspected perpetrators. His reason? "iran and hizbs deny having any role , there is no solid proof to link iran." . Now, both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence clearly believe there is proof to link Iran, but at either rate, they are not listed as "perpetrators" but rather "suspected perpetrators." In other words, they're suspected. This is a fact you can not deny. BBC even reports it .
	:I thought that perhaps the user just didn't understand what suspected meant or what belongs in the box. I reverted his edit, and wrote in the summary box and warned him "Just bc a country and org denies it doesn't mean it's not true and doesn't belong in SUSPECTED perps box... Seems like vandalism, don't do it again."
	:Despite this, he goes back and it - and lists the same reason, nothing more and nothing less, just the same exact reason he gave before.
	:There are many more examples of this same behavior that I intend on listing here soon. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 02:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Consider another example from the 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Beunos Aires, Argentina. Again, <i>suspected</i> perps was listed as Hezbollah. No one denies this. Yet the IP address reverted it , again saying that hezbs denies that they did the attack. It's fine if they deny it, but that doesn't mean they aren't suspected... You know how many criminals lie? If the IP address would just read the section on Responsibility in the article, he would see that Hezbollah (and Iran) was linked to it in many different ways. A Hezbollah-linked organization took responsibility, and both Israel and Argentina blamed it on Hezbollah (and Iran), and proof was brought that suspects them further by the American National Security Agency. Again, it's all in the 5 paragraph passage in the article.
	::Brewcrewer his edit, for obvious reasons, and mentioned that Hezbollah also denies the Holocaust, and that doesn't make it true.
	::IP's respones? . His reason? "this is not a place for israeli activism. you can't name someone when they deny having any role." Now, the first part is just delusional, any unbiased editor or admin would see why Hezbollah belongs in suspected perpetrators box. The second part is silly - police charge criminals all the time when they deny the role (I'm referring to people who actually did it), and often later they admit it. If there's enough proof, it can go. We're not talking about the <i>perpetrator</i> box - we're talking about <i>suspected</i> perpetrator box. And it is supported by 5 paragraphs in the passage on Responsibility.
	::Now, when I noticed what he did on the Bulgaria page, and saw his edit history, I went to this page and his vandalism, with a clear explanation. "read up on what the word "suspected" means before removing factual and important information. Don't repeat this again, it looks like vandalism." Again, I pointed out that it was suspected perpetrator box and why it should go.
	::His response? Again he it. <b>So now he just violated the 3RR rule, which is a serious offense.</b> he writes in the summary box - "iran and hizbs deny having any role, and suspected by whom ? by israel ?)" AGAIN, he does vandalism - the article clearly gives 5 paragraphs on this very topic, and no, not just by Israel, although even if it was only by Israel, it would still go in the <i>suspected</i> perpetrators box!
	::I reverted his vandalism (this is only my 2nd revert on the page). Again, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I wrote in teh summary box and warned him "IP address, I am warning you a final time - do not continue this vandalism. If you have a question, raise it in talk page. I am reverting this vandalism. Read aftermath section...)" The appropriate thing would've been to go to the talk page if he still had problems. Or to just read the responsibility box. Since I saw he just kept reverting my well-explained reverts and good-faith edits to his vandalism, I decided not to revert further on other pages other than what I had done since an edit war is unnecessary and could result in sanctions, and the appearance already may seem like some to be an edit war (although not my intention and not how I played it out, although clearly how the IP address did it). So I decided I'd file a request, but noticed Brewcrewer already made one.
	::Admins are free to do what they feel best. Personally, I recommend an indefinite topic ban from Israel-Palestine articles and suspected Hezbollah/Iran attacks on Israelis/Jews, or an indefinite Misplaced Pages ban considering his previous two bans.
	::Hope it helps. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Activism, please take to heart ]. I notice ''neither'' of you have followed the recommended format. ] (]) (]) 03:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{AN3\|d}} - No violation on 3RR grounds. Take it to another forum if you believe there's underlying issues. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
			# (31 December 2024)
			# (6 January 2024)
			# (7 January 2025)
			# (8 January 2025)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 month) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Dhimmitude}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Altetendekrabbe}}

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

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

			] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
			: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)
	* 1st revert: revert of this edit (added later as clarification per this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Penwhale&oldid=503092782#3RR)
			::{{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)
	* 2nd revert: revert of this edit
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert:
	* 5th revert of this edit
	<!-- 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 -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Science of Identity Foundation}}
	<!-- 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:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Sokoreq}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	The user once again broken 3RR.He was already blocked multiple time for this.--] (])/] 05:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:excuse me but check the diffs. in the 2. diff i added back a reliable secondary source which user frotz removed without any justification. removing sources like that without discussion, without justification is contentious editing. in addition, this diff is totally UNRELATED to the other diffs.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:in the 3. diff i reverted estlandia who is tag-teaming and hounding me. he reverts me blindly, without any discussion at all. his disruptive behavior has been confirmed by several other editors and an administrator here, .
			# {{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:'''
	:the first 1. diff came after consensus was reached on the talk page regarding how you misrepresent/misuse sources. it was not a "revert" either. you are the one who should be blocked for tag-teaming and misrepresentation of sources. we see this over and over again. user shrike's attempts of tag-teaming and disruptive behavior is discussed here, .
			# {{diff2\|1267996755\|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"

	:just like to point out again: the 2.diff is totally unrelated to the other 3 diffs. hence i have not broken any rule. you are trying misuse this noticeboard.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
	::It doesn't matter it was still revert of this edit .I urge you to revert yourself.--] (])/] 07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|History of India}} <br />
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Garudam}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:::the edit confirms what i wrote: user frotz removed a reliable secondary source without any justification nor any discussion. i want the opinion of an administrator. if i broke the 3-rr then i will indeed self-revert. if i revert now i would be guilty removing a reliable secondary source.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 08:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::The removal you're referring was a case of removing commentary of something not completely relevant to the article. I accidentally hit "Save page" before I wrote my summary. -- ](]) 09:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:::::please, stop talking nonsense. the diff is there. you removed a reliable secondary source.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
			#
			#
			#
			#
			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
			he removed my warning for whatever reason

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	::::::I'm not disputing its reliability. I removed it because it was not relevant. -- ](]) 09:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	I must note that editor constantly change his post after my response so it hard to follow, he was blocked many times for edit warring and he back to the same behavior once again moreover this issue is still under discussion as evident from the talk page but the user reverting non-stop instead seeking proper ]--] (])/] 08:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	this is utter nonsense...shrike is edit warring against consensus. he is now adding unrelated reverts to his diff-list (the 5. diff). he removed sourced content. my revert is totally justified (which amounts to a single revert of his disruptive edit.) shrike is now being disruptive because his misrepresentation of sources, his edit warring allegations ended in a total failure. he is deliberately making new disruptive edits so that he get reverted... this is a blatant attempt to game the system. shrike should be blocked for disruptive editing. as noted by admin Penwhale i did not break the 3-rr as the 2. diff is totally unrelated to the others. shrike has now added another UNRELATED diff to his list (the 5. diff). incredibly stupid.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
			Dont even know where to start with this one. I tried many avenues to solve this with him even after he started edit warring, and his newest replies completely ignored the fact that he has done that. There was a clear consesnsus that the content removal was justified on the talk page. At the time of the edit warring, it was 3-1 with most agreeing that it should be deleted. He completely ignored that fact entirely. I warned him about edit warring, and his response was to remove the warning template on his talk page. The content itself has a ton of issues which we went over in the talk page(completely different dynasty, contradiction by a more authoritative source, not using the term “indianized”)Its clear that my efforts to reach out to him have failed and the content still remains on the article. And non of his new responses have even refuted or mentioned the points made. Requesting administrative action. (] (]) 15:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC))
			*'''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)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
	*{{AN3\|d}} I see 3, not 4. It's also evidently a content dispute, so this isn't the forum for it. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 08:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	:*I'm extremely close to block both of you for disruptive editing. Please do not make me do so. Play nice. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	:** I too would feel extremely close to blocking both parties here – see my previous warnings a few days ago – but I'll defer to Penwhale in this instance. (Note also that I was sollicited to comment by one side in the dispute). In any case, one alternative suggestion would be the following: block all parties to this dispute for a longish period, unless they commit to the following conditions: (1) strict 1RR/48 hours revert limitation for all parties concerned on the two articles in question (] and ]); (2) every revert to be preceded by (a) a substantive, content-not-commentator-oriented explanation of the reasons for the planned revert on the talk page, followed by (b) an obligatory waiting period of, say, 4 hours between the explanation and actually carrying out the revert, to slow the revert warring down and allow for more discussion. Just a thought. ] ] 11:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Westville Boys' High School}}
	::**Well you became involved as you edited the article I don't have problem with your proposal I was not me who have history of edit warring and made 5 or 6 reverts to the article.--] (])/] 11:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	::*** Just for the record, I consider my recent clerical edit to the article as well below the threshold of "'']''", so I still reserve the right to take administrative action there should the need arise. ] ] 11:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|37.72.154.146}}
	::::::@fut.perf., i totally agree with your 2. proposal which makes the 1. proposal somehow superfluous. more discussion is indeed the correct procedure. the dispute i had with frotz is now, more or less, solved. it was at that moment shrike became disruptive.--<small><span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;background:blue;">]</span></small> 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, our primary bone of contention appears to be resolved. Howver, I understand the point that Shrike is making. Hopefully my recent writing at ] will calm people down and start a dialog on exactly what's wrong now. -- ](]) 11:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\| 1 month}}. Unless I'm missing something significant, Altetendekrabbe has proceeded to revert again after this report was closed by Penwhale. With a clear set of four reverts at 10:48, 11:12, 22:03, and 10:13, I have blocked him for a month. While I agree that the behavior of other editors has not been ideal here, I don't see any bright line violations. Clearly, some alternate set of restrictions needs to be placed on the article. ] ] 11:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:This is idiotic. The three users, Frotz, Shrike and Estlandia have been tag teaming and edit warring to try and get Altetendekrabbe blocked for a month now. They basically revert his every edit on this, and previously, on other, articles. Kuru just amply rewarded their behavior. Message to Misplaced Pages users: bullying others and ganging up on them is just fine, as long as you know how to kiss admin ass. And this "I agree that the behavior of other editors has not been ideal here" is just so many fucking crocodile tears. If it has been less than ideal (in fact, it has been much worse than Alt's) then block them for god's sake.] 12:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	::I have opened SPI case regarding this, as this is extremely concerning. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 12:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==
			# {{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:'''
	'''Panic! at the Disco:''' {{pagelinks\|Panic! at the Disco<!-- Panic! at the Disco -->}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1268160425\|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
	'''BROBX:''' {{userlinks\|BROBX<!-- BROBX -->}}
			# {{diff2\|1268160707\|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268160586\|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"

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

			== ] by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<!-- 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:

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

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

	<!-- 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 -->
	~~Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:~~		#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	] has been repeatedly reverting edits I have made to the ] article. When I first made the edits, I created a section on the talk page to discuss the issue. The issue is adding Dallon Weekes as a full-time memeber of the band. The sources that had been previously added to source his addition to the band were not useful for that task, which I discussed in detail on the talk page. The first revert had no edit summary, and the next two called my reverts "vandalism". I entreated the editor twice on their talk page to discuss the issue on the Panic! talk page, with absolutely no discussion taking place from these notices (BROBX's talk page has since been blanked by BROBX). I feel I did as much as I could to avoid this, but the editor refuses to discuss the issue. ] (]) 06:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) (]) 10:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|DanielUmel}}

			I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

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

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

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Vilation of 3RR, user is very keen on starting edit war and as a bonus his reverts include removal of sourced content and adding content from unreliable sources without any rationale but ]. ] (]) 11:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Biology and sexual orientation}}
	EllsworthSK has been reverting sourced content that he did not like because of the source. The source in question is the Official press agency of Syria. There DOZENS of mentions of opposition sources with uncheckable claims. But we are still writing them. The same is needed for governement sources by NPOV.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|80.200.232.89}}
	EllesworthSK is using a various range of disruptive tactics to achieve its goal. He is purely erasing sourced content multiples times. He is erasing sourced content while adding other content to complain after a reversion that his addition has been deleted by reversion of his deletion.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	And after that, he is also calling other people via private messages to come to help him delete source content in order to not violate the rule alone. The user is trying to take control of various page, including one I created, in order to remove any concept of neutrality in these pages.
	--] (]) 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	:And I am eating toddlers for breakfast, too.
			# {{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:'''
	:Bytheway, since when does wikipedia has private messages? And since when do we consider state-controled propaganda agency to be reliable? Anyone? ] (]) 11:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268273398\|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Also, EllsworthSK report of my reversions of his deletion is a little bit unreal as he reverted '''6 times''' another of my addition in the Damascus battle page. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Damascus_%282012%29&offset=20120718151205&action=history <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			# {{diff2\|1268273324\|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"
	*{{AN3\|w}}. I see exactly zero warnings for a new contributor likely unaware of 3RR, and exactly zero discussion of the issue. Please consider ]. ] (]) (]) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==

			:'''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)
	This is the noticeboard for edit ''warring'', and not merely for edit warriors. Thus this post.

			:It wasn't an edit war you idiot, I only reverted the article there once.
	There is no ''one'' user involved; rather, two rather rash ones and perhaps three more who are more circumspect. Perhaps (the wrong version of) the article could beneficially be protected. I of course have the mop, bucket and light-sabre to do this and more myself, but since I seem to have become something of a combatant over there, I should refrain from using any of them. Anyway, the eyes of a few additional unexcited editors would be welcome. -- ] (]) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
			:And I will revert edits done by MrOllie if they don't even provide a reason or a rebuttal for why what I did was wrong. You did, so I stopped. ] (]) 02:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Also, how is talking about the genetic influence of homosexuality through the GWAS method controversial at all? I can accept that I was wrong regarding the environment dispute, but this is just ain't it. ] (]) 02:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::There is both unanswered discussion on the article talk page, as well as relevant discussion you had with Zenomonoz on your user talk. In any case, the onus is on you to secure agreement from other editors. ] (]) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::In addition to the 4 reverts listed above, you're also up to 3 reverts at ], not one as you claim. ] (]) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::You're just being purposefully antagonistic lol. We solved the issue already, that's why you didn't revert it again. Then zenomonoz strolls in and reverts because he thought the issue persisted, now he's just grasping straws and finding excuses like requiring a secondary source when half the God damn encyclopedia uses nothing but primary sources. ] (]) 04:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::To be clear the issue was the race and intelligence example I used. ] (]) 04:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::The issue is absolutely not 'solved'. That I was not willing to edit war in this instance does not mean that I agree with you. ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Because Misplaced Pages is based upon secondary sources, like reviews, and not primary source studies that are often misinterpreted by readers (and editors) such as yourself. ] (]) 03:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It's funny because 3 out of 7 (primary) sources used in the GWAS article can also be found in the article ']' alone, just to illustrate my point to you about how you're grasping at straws ] (]) 04:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|one week}}. ] (]) 13:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
	:"This page is for reporting active edit warriors" , and you can't have an edit war without edit warriors. No matter how you slice it, you can't report 209.6.69.227 as an edit warrior, but easily could report the editor with whom you are collaborating, Casprings. You are suggesting a remedy which fixes no apparent problem, but rather, rewards an edit warrior you are encouraging, by blocking all IPs.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Time (band)}}
	:The key standard to edit warring is "rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" WP:BLP , or, more specifically WP:RS concerns with questionable material being removed were raised and never addressed on the Talk page (avoiding discussion), and instead reverted by Casprings, avoiding discussion.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|104.173.25.23}}
	:An RfC ignoring the issues to be addressed on the Talk page (instead claiming this was an issue of size of paragraph. The size of a paragraph is determined by the availability of noteworthy, WP:RS material, not the other way around; puffing up a bio is what got us here) was initiated, and Casprings insisted WP:BLP and WP:RS issues could not be addressed until the RfC was concluded, avoiding discussion (unsuccessfully) on WP:BLP and WP:RS.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:After 72hours, a 4:1 consensus (later 4:2, when Hoary 'fessed up) on RfC on removal of the WP:RS non-compliant material was achieved, material removed, Casprings reverts again, against consensus, avoiding discussion.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Could also argue that beginning a ANI:EW without naming a EW, as Hoary just did, with the hoped-for outcome of blocking an editor with whom you disagree, but who is NOT edit warring, thus avoiding WP:RS discussion could also be Edit Warring. --] (]) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1268310745\|04:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Already took it to talk"
			# {{diff2\|1268310470\|04:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268310062\|04:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1268308804\|04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Please stop the edit war. These reverts are vandalism."
			# {{diff2\|1268308036\|04:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Deleted content is irrelevant and was inappropriately added"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	*{{AN3\|p}}, instead. I would like to see more discussion taking place on the talk page. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 18:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


	:Curious; how does this action in any way improve the situation? How does this action encourage proper reference to Talk pages and the proper discussion of the issues there, as has been asked for on the Talk and Article pages? --] (]) 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Philip Humber}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Carthage44}}

			Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			* {{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Shecose}}
	* 6th revert:

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

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			# {{diff2\|1268346980\|08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) Undiscussed move. The editor is acting out of personal hate instead of collaborating."
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			# {{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:'''
	<!-- 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:

	This is an ongoing problem with Carthage44, I have tried on several articles to discuss things, he will not engage, and the one time he spoke, when he decided the conversation was over, he blanked the article talk page (José Quintana article, where he's now blanked the talk page conversation for a second time... diffs here:and ). He constantly blanks his own talk page as well, so while I did place a template there, it will likely be gone before long. This particular conversation seems to be going on in edit summaries, and since he's replied to previous ones, he's obviously reading them. We've had the same problem with him on several articles, the ] article has been particularly problematic as well, since he feels he should revert stats because "they don't need to be updated that often". Serious WP:OWN issues in general on this articles imo.

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	He's already been brought to DRN and possibly ANI recently as well (Might have been EWN, not ANI), if you want more diffs, I can provide them, just let me know. He's had several editwarring blocks already as well, as I'm sure you can see for yourself.

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

			Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|w}}. I suppose he read it, because . - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 08:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:sigh... he's been doing this for months... we'll be back soon... and his excuse of "stats were not correct" is bullshit. He's been adding that as an edit summary every time after another admin told him that was the only good reason to revert. If you look through his edits you'll see he adds the exact same numbers later, or waits for another game before adding, and the stats were correct. I have reverted him many times for this but he continues to do it. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Political activities of the Koch family}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|24.45.42.125}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Korean clans of foreign origin}} <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\|Ger2024}}

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

	<!-- 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: # <small>(edit summary: "this article is about their political advocacy, not their philanthropy")</small>
	* 2nd revert: # <small>(edit summary: "consensus has clearly rejected describing them as philanthropists in this article")</small>
	* 3rd revert: # <small>(edit summary: "citation for per-plate cost. Also, see talk for consensus. They are unquestionably billionaires, but their philanthropy has been ruled irrelevant to this article.")</small>
	* 4th revert: # ‎ <small>(edit summary: "Philanthropy is explicitly out of scope; see talk. Being billionaires, however, is precisely why they deserve an article.")</small>

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

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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 -->
			# "Lady Saso: New Section"
			# "Lady Saso: Reply"

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

			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).
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

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

			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 ].
	Hi. Am I supposed to say something here? ] (]) 05:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:You are engaged in a slow motion edit war against multiple editors over what the Koch's should be called in the lead ("billionaires" vs. "philanthropists"), and you're claiming consensus on talk to justify your behavior. You can say something now... – ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Well, then I guess I should say that your statement is inaccurate. On the talk page, BoogaLouie, Jojalozzo and I explained repeatedly that the article, as per its title, is about political activity as opposed to philanthropy. Even you admit this, in your good-faith but wrong suggestion that we should expand it to include philanthropy.
	::Not only is this four to two, but the two (Collect and Belchfire) aren't discussing the topic collegially and are instead engaging in what you would call a "slow-motion edit war against multiple editors". They're not just reverting me, but the others as well. Belchfire hasn't said a word in talk for two days, while Collect only flatly contradicted the dictionary definition, yet both keep editing against consensus. And now Belchfire launched this black-pot-against-grey-kettle attack against me instead of participating constructively. Really, the problem here is them. ] (]) 07:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:Claiming "consensus" is not an excuse to edit war per WP:3RRNO. Saying another editor was also edit warring is also not an excuse for ''you'' to edit war. You really should try to come up with a really really good rationale why the admins should waive WP:EW in ''your case'' and not worry about other users.– ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Actually, I didn't say they were "also" edit-warring. I said that, by your standards, they were, but your standards do not appear to be Misplaced Pages standards, at least not by a plain reading of the rules. The indicator of an edit war is that many changes are happening per day without discussion. In contrast, I've been playing a constructive role in the discussion and I'm just one of the people who keeps reverting the inappropriate term that Belchfire and Collect insist upon against consensus.
	::Once again, the problem here lies entirely with the accuser, not the accused. If anyone is edit-warring here, it's Belchfire, not me. It's ironic that he's trying to game the system by accusing me of what he himself is guilty of (and I am not). ] (]) 07:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

			] (]) 14:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}} for 3 days due to the horrid page history. For the record - PAC is not really for "humanitarian purposes", and the word "billionaire" is entirely neutral, so I'm calling at least part of the revert warring ]. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 08:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
			*Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--] (]) 14:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of vegans}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Andomedium}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	<!-- You'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 -->
	*First attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	*Second objection to changes on article talk page:

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

	While the editor has only actually reverted twice, he has wilfully disregarded the consensus. Two editors favored adding images to the table while two editors were against this undertaking, as seen . Despite the clear objection by two editors, and the clear lack of consensus the editor went ahead and without undertaking any further efforts to achieve a consensus. There was a to these changes and observation that there was no consensus, but this was completely ignored by the editor who pressed ahead with making the changes, with a total disregard for the opposing viewpoint. There were also concerns by an editor that the archiving was unnecessarily speeded up too so that objections to the changes were speedily archived: .

	I reverted these changes and started an ], given the editor's total refusal to respond to any opposing viewpoints. The RfC is in its early stages but so far the responses have been against these changes undertaken by the editor. I think the article should be returned to its pre-change state, and given the editor's refusal to cease making changes he should be blocked for the duration of the RfC so the consensus can suitably be decided and enforced. ] (]) 08:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	*{{AN3\|d}}, partially because the edit warring, while there, isn't blowing out of proportion. That being said, the original implementation of the new table was apparently done without it being addressed on the talk page, so I commend you on opening the RFC as well as trying to discuss instead of edit war further. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 08:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	*:Can you at least fully protect the page then until the RfC is completed? At least then the editor will HAVE to participate in the discussion, otherwise he will just keep making the changes. It is pretty clear he is going to continue ignoring all protestations. ] (]) 09:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::*I see no reason to; the table layout, not the content, is being questioned. Therefore, as it's not ''content dispute'', and there's no edit-war going on, page protection is not necessary. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 09:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::*So basically, he can continue to keep implementing changes regardless of the fact that there is a major disagreement over them and there is no consensus for them? So what you're really saying is that to take him out of the picture I have to edit war with him, and take a hit for the team, and we both get a 24 hour block? I can live with that I guess, but I still think it's a little unfair. I'll get us both up to four reverts and then you'll be able to block us both. ] (]) 09:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::*I did NOT say that. Threats to revert war is also grounds for blocks, so I strongly suggest you to refrain from doing so. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 09:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::*An editor is undertaking edits that not only does he not have a consensus for, but which other editors OBJECTED to. Despite these objections he is continuing with them. However, you are saying he's not breaking the rules basically because I am behaving and not edit-warring with him? Can you not see the absurdity of your stance? ] (]) 09:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::::*From MY point of view: the table formatting can be changed later; as I can see ''productive'' edits in the history, I see no reason to block. Please keep in mind of the ], where admins are free to choose whether to protect a page or issue blocks. At the moment, as you have threatened to continue edit-warring, it's entirely possible for admins to block you and only you. I note that Andomedium has commented at the current RfC, which means that at least you can try to come to a compromise on the talk page without being forced to. - ] \| <sup>] and ]</sup> 10:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::*Please read my response ]. The troublemaker known as Betty Logan either has a poor memory or she's attempting to deceive you. --] (]) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2012 Burgas bus bombing}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|109.165.140.217}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	<!-- You'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: Editor also makes personal comments about other editors. </u> <br />

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

	I can see that the 3rd, 5th and 6th edits are reverts; could you show me diffs for the edits which added the content for the 1st, 2nd and 4th reverts, so that I can be sure they are reverts? Thanks. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:I am also encouraged by ] and would be hesitant to block, unless the user reverts again. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 12:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::And I am discouraged by , editor has made several 'Israeli' attacks. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Edit 1, this content in the lead was added by two different editors ,, and was the subject of lengthy ]. The content he removed was the product of talk discussions.
	:Edit 2, the edit summary makes clear that its a revert.
	:Edit 4 reverts edit.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] (]) (]) 13:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	** (ec) You bet me to it, but I was considering blocking both editors. The 109.* IP clearly broke 3RR, but AnkhMorpork's hands aren't clean either. He has made at least three reverts too . Moreover, AnkhMorpork's edits show troublesome signs of ]: presenting a ripped-out-of-context quotation by a politician as he did here , in a way that clearly insinuates the words were in reference to the topic of the article, when in reality it seems pretty clear they were spoken in a totally different context, is a pretty serious sign of disruptive agenda-pushing. Even if it is true that some Israeli news outlets have also suggested that connection ( is an English version), that hardly justifies just adopting it as a matter of source. ] ] 13:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::Regarding your cited edit, I restored a deletion with the explanation of "heavy WP:SYNTH, because speech was completely irrelevant to attack". I checked the which explicitly linked the two, so restored the content as the grounds of removal were obviously incorrect. I am at a loss as to how you have construed this as TE.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::I welcome FPaS to block AnhkMorpork or warn him of possible sanctions. I blocked solely based on technical grounds of a 3RR violation (1RR doesn't apply to ] regarding anonymous editors). That said, now having looked into the content, I do not believe that quote was at all out of context (] is common in international relations where two sides don't like each other). ] (]) (]) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::::Please have a look at the , look at the the explanation for deletion - "speech was completely irrelevant to attack", and explain to me what I did wrong? And this was not the only listed source either. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::If you're asking me: I just clearly stated I didn't think you took the source out of context. Behavior-wise, edit warring is always discouraged, and it was probably within my leeway even to have blocked you for it in this case. You really ought to have stopped after at most the second revert and let discussion finish or let someone else step in (after all, the IP had broken 1RR at this point). A large part of the reason I didn't block your account is because this is breaking news, so it's more important than most articles to make sure we have the right version ''now'' (because it will be receiving many more eyeballs now), so the behavior for edit warring is more understandable even if it is suboptimal. ] (]) (]) 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::::Advice accepted. I will refrain from editing this article until it is more stable and just participate in talk page discussions.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::::: Re to Magog: it may be justifiable to say he made non-specific remarks about "blows" dealt out to Iran's enemies, which were ''interpreted'' by some observers in the Israeli press as veiled references to the attack, and as "gloating" about it. That much is true. Claiming as a fact that he ''did'' in fact refer to them, or even just insinuating he did through the juxtaposition of the quotation with the rest of the paragraph as was done here, in light of the fact that according to the literal quotation itself he clearly didn't mention the attacks at all and was speaking in a different context, falls into the "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" category in my view, and in the absence of such exceptional evidence it can really be seen as a BLP violation. ] ] 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Weston Wamp}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}
	hiroloveswords
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

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

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Weston_Wamp
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	<!-- 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 />
	This user has removed the "controversy" section about a particular political candidate, Weston Wamp. For the sake of multiple sides on the issue and democracy, I ask that the section remain. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Weston_Wamp)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

	*{{AN3\|d}} This noticeboard is to report editors who make more than three reverts on one article in 24 hours. If you disagree with another editor's contributions, try to discuss it with them on the talk page. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Hong Kong Air Cadet Corps}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|IJBDD}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	* 1st revert:
	* 2nd revert:
	* 3rd revert:
	* 4th revert: The fourth revert was done by an IP who used the same edit summary as the other reverts ("Undid revision xxxxxxxxx by Example (talk)"), so I'm guessing it's the user, logged-out to prevent breaching 3RR.

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

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

	<!-- 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: However, my reverts are an exception to the 3RR rule because they were removing clear copyright violations.

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

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

	*{{AN3\|p}} I've semi-protected the page for 2 days because of the copyright violations. I can't block the user in question because they have made only 3 reverts (the fourth was from an IP editor). ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action per "preventative, not punitive" and self-reverts) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Thomas Jefferson}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Gwillhickers}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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


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

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

	<!-- You'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 />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	The editor keeps reverting edits even though all the other editors on the talk page disagree with him on the matter.] (]) 19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	::"All other editors" do not say this, so please remind User ''Quarkgluonsoup'' that slandering other editors to make a point isn't the way to approach the Administrators' noticeboard. ''Quarkgluonsoup'' came to the ] page and started in making , not allowing time for other editors to respond, often removing sourced text. There is no one single item that has been reverted more than three times in a row. All edits in question have been restorations of original sourced text that this user took upon him/herself to delete and/or edit. Quarkgluonsoup's presence and hurried editing manner has done little more than bring disruption to the page and to the discussion. -- ] (]) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::] clearly states "undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same ''or different'' material each time—counts as a revert" (emphasis mine). It also states "If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake". I suggest you make use of this option before a less flexible admin processes this case. There are many editors watching the Jefferson pages, so it is unlikely that a widely unacceptable version will survive for long. --] (]) 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::::Quarkgluonsoup made the initial changes, dozens of them, major edits, continuously deleting or changing sourced material. I merely restored. If this is a 3rr vio, I will be happy to undo the edits and simply write the sections involved as they were before. My apologies for any rules I may have breached. -- While we're at it, how does one 'check' an editor who storms in and makes dozens of major changes, removing sourced contributions? If an other editor can only make three reverts, that would leave the offending editor to edit as he/she pleases until someone else comes along, and then again, that someone else can only make three reverts. This is an exceptional situation and I can only hope the people reviewing this case will take this into consideration. Also, the ] page has a long history of editors who act without discussion or consensus. -- ] (]) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	:::::In the spirit of cooperation I have reversed two of my major reverts of Quarkgluonsoup's last edits. My apologies for any trouble I may have brought to WP. -- ] (]) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

	I have no idea what I did wrong, but a longish post I made as an involved editor somehow turned up on another page, where it got deleted. . ] (]) 00:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::I have no idea how that got moved either. -- In any case, I have conceded mistakes about 3rr, which is what I think they're most concerned about here. Your opinion that I am a "warrior" is also unfair, as the page has a long history of bloat, pov, so forth. At one time the 'Hemings controversy section was more than and filled with pov and one sided conjecture. There was a ] so there is and has always been ''plenty'' of reasons to look after the page -- and as edit history will reveal, I am not the only "persistent warrior" to the page. And may I also say in my own defense I have never edited/deleted material in the Jefferson page at a rate as we have just seen here. This whole issue was highly provoked and is typical of the past trouble we have had to deal with on the Jefferson page. -- ] (]) 01:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::Gwillickers is one of two persistent warriors during the time I've been at TJ, maybe a year. He's unhappy because QGSoup has messed with his article. Gw' similarly did an indignant total revert to recent changes (improvements, imo) I made; I just didn't fight back.
	::::Looking at QGSoup's contributions, his editing style seems to be to blitz through one article after another. He may take notice that a better way to help build the encyclopedia is to engage with longtime editors at any given article; collaboration is fundamental to the project. ] (]) 03:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

	* User has understood the violation and self-reverted. There is spirited discussion with some ownership problems at the Jefferson articles, but I'm closing this for now.. Some additional admin attention at the articles would be welcome. --] (]) 03:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Thomas Sowell}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Arzel}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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


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

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

	<!-- You'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> Arzel has removed large amounts of content and has not justified the second specific removal in the talk page despite repeated calls for ]. ] (]) 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)<br />
	:Are you aware that ''you'' are also edit warring and are subject to a block? That's called WP:BOOMERANG. And boy is it a bitch. Btw what's up with asking other editors to keep your edit wars going when you reach 3RR? That's called WP:MEAT. – ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	::I made exactly two reverts. The first removal was after a period of 3 days time under which no justification was made for the inclusion of non-notabl criticism of a living person. The insertion of the criticism at that time did not have concensus, but I thought I would see if any valid reason would be given for the inclusion, or if main-stream sources had discussed the controvery in order to validate weight. No main-stream sources were commenting on the supposed controversy, only left wing sites.. I my edit on the talk page and recieved no discussion from Cartoon Diablo. One of the sources which had been added is which is definately not a reliable source for a BLP. ] (]) 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	::FTR, CD attempt to use another editor to violate . ] (]) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

	] has been full protected for 7 days or until this content dispute is resolved. ] (]) 23:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Presidency of Barack_Obama}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|<!-- Place the name of the user you are reporting here -->}}

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

	Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

	<!-- You'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 /> Obama articles are under a ] restriction, which has been noted on the IP Talk page. Thanks. ] (]) 04:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Latest revision as of 14:26, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

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

Click here to create a new report

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Vandalism

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User talk:Hemiauchenia#January 2025

"""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.

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

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

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

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

"I "tried to delete me reporting them""

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

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

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

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

The user immediately reverts without explanation and raises the protection level

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

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

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

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

I notify the user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: