Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:57, 3 August 2012 editMagog the Ogre (talk | contribs)Administrators100,727 edits →User:Youreallycan reported by User:Ryulong (Result: ): just ban him← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:23, 9 January 2025 edit undoShecose (talk | contribs)54 edits →User:Shecose reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: ) 
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 = 191 |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&#039; 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== ] reported by ] (Result: Withdrawn) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Chance997}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
{{hat|User has managed to find the talk page}}
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Rape in Pakistan}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Minar-e-pakistan}}


'''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: Removes reliably sourced content
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


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


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


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


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)
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 15:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==
I have asked the user to self revert as the edits he is making are not supported by the sources, he continues to restore them. this is pure ] as is this which I can only describe as a hideous attitude. ] (]) 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2024 United Kingdom general election}}
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
{{hab}}
*{{AN3|n}} Withdrawn by requester. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 10:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|ToadGuy101}}
== ] reported by ] (Result: Stale) ==


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|India and weapons of mass destruction}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|115.188.247.153}}


'''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|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:'''
Previous version reverted to: (see comments section)
# {{diff2|1267751597|14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."


'''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. -->
# {{diff2|1267301347|14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) on Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election}} "/* Adding other mainstream parties to info box. */ new section"
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "")</small>


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


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)
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
*{{AN3|b|48 hours}}. ] (]) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE) ==
Regarding the previous version reverted to - this is a long term issue so I'm not 100% sure where the best version to return to would be. This report is on the IP user, but it may also be worth looking at the actions of {{user|Anir1uph}}. Note: there has also been a ] on ]. ''']''' (] • ]) <small>] (etc) template appreciated.</small> 06:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|1000mods}} <br />
*{{AN3|stale}}, although I gather RFPP may be better anyway... - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 11:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Mindxeraser}}


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Richard Dawkins}} <br />
#
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kazemita1}}
#
#
#


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


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


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


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
<!-- 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 -->
{{AN3|b|indef}} as ]. ] (]) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /64 blocked two weeks) ==
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Fernanda Torres}}
<!-- 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: and


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2804:7F0:9701:8C07:BEC:7870:C52:1B53}}
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
Editor is editing pretty clearly against consensus. Took it to ] for unknown reasons and now seems to think that (s)he has some sort of administrative carte blanche to add material. ] (]) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
*I think that a 24 hour block would be in order. ] ] 23:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
On my defense, there was no attempt in resolving the dispute from the plaintiff's side. There was no mention of a specific part of my edit except for the removal of the summary of the viewpoints of the criticizers . Which I addressed immediately and gradually during my last 3 edits; yet the plaintiff is counting that as an edit war. Moreover, on the talk page I kept requesting them to mention which specific part they disagree, but heard no response other than bulk reverts of disputed and non-disputed material by different users. I also, argue that wrong sentences, such as "Dawkins' criticizers are all Christian thinkers" does not require consensus to correct when we have atheist like ] in the article on his opposite side.--] (]) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
p.s. Besides the fact that my edits are all different and are moving towards the middle-ground, don't we need 4 edits for 3RR?
# {{diff2|1267808569|20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted edits by DandelionAndBurdock."
:I issued the warning a full half hour before your third rv. Had you read the warning you would have seen this "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." ] (]) 00:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267807858|20:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
::On the subject of "behavior", I am continuing my effort in resolving the issues in the talk page. You are also invited to attend.--] (]) 03:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1267807213|20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Restored old version."
:::You still do not seem to understand that you violated 3RR. ] (]) 03:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
{{AN3|d}} I don't see Dbrodbeck actually having contributed much in the discussion; no ''technical violation'', and talk page discussion is happening, so there's no reason to block. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 11:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
# {{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:'''
== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined with note) ==


'''Page:Pink Floyd''' {{pagelinks|Pink Floyd}} <br />
'''GabeMc:''' {{userlinks|GabeMc}}


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
<!-- 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|two weeks}} The whole /64 since this involved relevant information on a BLP. ] (]) 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Template:Twenty20 competitions}}
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:


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


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
# {{diff2|1267452946|04:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{diff2|1267525585|14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<u>Comments:This the/The argument has been under dispute for many years. This editor has launched a mediation for this edit and while the medcom board is deciding continues to make the same changes at various musical group articles. He was warned and stopped on several Beatles articles in the previous week for the same edit. </u> <br />
# {{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:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{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}}
] (]) 04:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
* Actually, I have stayed away from Beatles articles this weekend to avoid this constant drama and harassment. Now, you have followed me to ] and a ] is forthcoming. Can an admin please put an end to this time waster. This account was made for the sole purpose to fight for this issue while attacking me and posting creepy messages on my talk page, they have accused me of having an "agreement" with them, and are trying some type of psychological warfare/stalking/harassment. They are perhaps even the master of the Beatlesgirl socks, I don't know, just please, someone end this nonsense! I'm not gonna bother posting diffs unless needed or asked, just , you'll see what I mean. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 04:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:you mention 'not gonna bother posting diffs unless needed or asked,' I would like to ask for diffs. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 11:21, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC) This user has been changing the template format and moving to inappropriate title despite warning and discussion. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: I told the user not to make any changes until the discussion is over and a consensus is reached... but, they are just doing it... <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#0078D7;">'''''Vestrian'''''</span>]</span> 02:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Oh yeah, this is also a fake report because I never reverted them once at Pink Floyd, or anywhere to my knowledge. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 05:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
*:Slay the troll. Now. ] <sup>(]&#124;])</sup> 05:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC) *{{AN3|p}} (by {{u|BusterD}}) ] (]) 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Evan2008, Your ad hominem comment attempt at disruption of WP processes are not welcome and are disruptive. Please do not try to distract from the issues presented constantly. You may soon become a target for administrators for this behaviour, in future. Thank you. ] (]) 01:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|d}} You don't have to revert ''them'' for 3RR; the capitalization issue however should be discussed. Please {{AN3|n}} that the argument over at t/The Beatles probably should govern all related capitalization issues. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 11:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: /21 blocked for three years) ==
*This one needs very careful attention people. Considering that they are editing the MoS itself to refer to the Beatles, it's pretty plain 'should govern' isn't going to work very well. <span style="text-shadow:#c5C3e3 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 11:13, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|UNITA}}
* To clarify, I havn't reverted ''anyone'' at Pink Floyd for ''any'' reason in recent memory. Also, as far as "the/The" is concerned, from ]: , so why would I need to discuss this at each article page I edit? Do we really need to re-establish consensus to ''follow'' the MoS, or should those who disagree with the MoS go to the MoS talk page and make their compaints there, versus edit-warring with people who are ''following'' the MoS at article pages? Why has the onnus been put on those who do ''not'' intentionally break with the MoS versus those who ''do'' ignore the MoS? ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 21:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:::You did edit war, GabeMc, and you appear to fully intend to contibue this in the future. By changing "The" to "the" and when I changed it back you repeated the editwar offence mixed in with other edits with a generic and deceptive edit history comment. Please see ]. Later you repeated the same edit for another band title disguised in with more small edits. This is the complaint. Your arrogant and decpetive attitude is not collaborative with the other WP editors and your own mediation request, curently in session, on this very issue. Your "I didn't know that", childlike, approach is getting tiresome to many observing you. This appears to be used in your style on a regular basis as you have on Beatles articles, in the past. You were previously warned about this on those article talk pages and you acknowledged there. Clicking on the "undo"link never works for your edits as you follow almost every one up with a typo correction or other edit of the edit section so that "reverts" are not possible with a simple "undo" click and the mixed in edits could have been valid. ] (]) 01:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|5.187.0.85}}
* I would suggest that absent a local consensus to the contrary, the current wikipedia MoS is the ''de facto'' local consensus at each article until replaced with a contrary consensus. As there is currently no local consensus at Pink Floyd to defy our MoS and cap the definite article mid-sentence, I am failing to see where I could have possibly done anything wrong. A disputed "consensus" at the Beatles does not carry over into ALL music related articles, does it? Also, the IP 99 followed me from the Beatles to Pink Floyd, which constitues (or is close to) wikistalking IMO. There is no consensus at Pink Floyd that I am breaking by following teh wikipedia MoS, so really, this is a complete non-issue. ~ ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Chick-fil-A}} <br />
# {{diff2|1268102471|04:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Still-24-45-42-125}}
# {{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:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


Previous version reverted to:


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert: n/a -- this report is for persistent WP:EW


<!-- 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:
#, warning for edit warring at Focus on the Family 2 days ago
#, warning for ew at Poli positions of Mitt Romney
#, warning for EW at Chick-Fil-A


== ] 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 ~~~~ -->
This user is edit warring across multiple political/controversial articles, against multiple editors, and without consensus.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
While this is a new user, they demonstrate familiarity with our policies and I'd recommend waiving WP:BITE due to the rampant disruption. A review of their suggests that they are a ]. While there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, a SPA who edit wars is particularly troublesome. To their credit this user does use the talk pages and WP:DRN, but IMO that does not excuse the edit warring across multiple pages against multiple editors. I would resist allowing the user to use their talk page participation as an excude to revert "per discussion." The edit summaries they leave when reverting make no claim of exemption under WP:3RRNO. As we move closer to the US Elections, we can't have these types of users wreaking havoc with our political articles. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 05:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
# (31 December 2024)
# (6 January 2024)
# (7 January 2025)
# (8 January 2025)


'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' (7 January 2025)
:For context, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ViriiK&diff=next&oldid=504532076, in which Lionelt outlines his plan to get me blocked. If you want to help him game the system by using you like a tool, please block me. ] (]) 06:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


:I updated the links for notices of edit warring to show my responses, in which I pointed out that the warnings were false. Feel free to ask them to show actual edit warring as opposed to their false reports of edit-warring. While you're at it, ask why this was mislabeled as a minor edit. Good day. ] (]) 06:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
::There is no plan to get Still blocked. Noone is forcing him to repeatedly hit the "revert" button. The warnings were not false. They were placed in good faith and based on disruptive behavior. He chose to 1RR, 2RR, 3RR. Noone made him do it. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Your own words, which I linked to, contradict your claim. Nothing you say now can unsay what you already admitted to. ] (]) 07:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
A comment: I'm not part of this dispute (I've just been watching Still and trying to offer helpful advice), but if you want to consider whether Still is a SPA, you may also want to also look at his ] before he signed up. It's true that most of his edits since signing up have been on political articles, but he started out broadly and for a while had an emphasis on philosophy articles (which is where I first met him). It seems to be a shared IP, but I'm pretty sure most of those edits were his based on our interactions, and perhaps he could clarify that. ] (]) 06:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:That's a fair question, so I'll be glad to answer it. Yes, the edits from my IP for the last few weeks before I created the account all look like mine. Frankly, I'd prefer to go back to improving philosophy articles, but I keep running into serious ] violations on political pages, which I've had to escalate to dispute resolution. ] (]) 06:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
::So, will you stop edit warring? Both of you? Pro-family and anti-gay can be dissembled to mean whatever you like... why don't you just take out the terms entirely? Chick-fil-A isn't anti-gay, they just don't believe their company needs to support gay marriage. Pro-family tends to mean pro-traditional-family. And anti-gay can be construed however you like. Some people might call Chick-fil-A anti-gay. Some people might not. Point is... don't edit war. If you think some other wording is wrong, don't keep warring over the content. Get a consensus and then put that in. Like I said, this might have been easily resolved by just taking that wording out entirely. Instead of saying Focus on the Family is pro-family or anti-gay, why not just say something like "Focus on the Family, which is opposed to gay marriage and encourages a traditional family, blah blah blah." OK, no more edit warring, yes? -- ] (]) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Woa cowboy. "Both" of you? I wasn't edit warring. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Avanu, I have no interest in edit-warring. I have brought multiple articles to Dispute Resolution in order to resolve these issues. ] (]) 07:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
::::It's great that you went to DRN. However that is not a license to edit war. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::{{RPA|Have you stopped beating your wife?}} ] (]) 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::<small>Note: I have redacted the ad hominem comment above --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 07:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
:::::<small>Note for the record that it was not an ad hominem. See discussion ]. ] (]) 09:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)</small>
{{od}}Arc's right. It wasn't an ad hominem, it was a counter-example of begging the question. The point is that, in order to stop, you must first start. That should be obvious. ] (]) 14:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Oh, come ''on''. If NBA commissioner ] can ] and not having it labeled as ad hominem... In any case, {{AN3|d}} because apparently ''everyone'' enjoys being trigger happy about reverts. Seek DRN/RFC/etc, as if restrictions were performed as is I'd imagine it'd be on both sides. - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 11:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


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


] (]) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Libyan civil war}} {{pagelinks|2011 military intervention in Libya}} {{pagelinks|Syrian Civil War}}<br />
:I've made my position clear. There is NO source that supports your version that between October 2006 and January 2012 he was not a member of any group. The current version is both manipulative (goes from 2006 Mujahideen Shura Council straight to 2012 al-Nusra) and contradicts RS that mention him as member of ISI in that period. There are RS that support my version, none that supports yours. A revision that'd include "2008-2012 ISI" (which would bypass his prison years 2006-08) would be a better solution. But a career infobox that straight-up omits the entire 2006-12 period is unacceptable.--] (]) 19:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{AN3|noex}} And really, this deserves more talking out on the talk page, which hasn't seen any discussion of this for a week (But, that having been said, if it continues like this I or another admin may be less tolerant). ] (]) 23:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked one week) ==
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Sopher99}}
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Science of Identity Foundation}}
Previous version reverted to:
<!-- 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:


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


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
# {{diff2|1268163705|11:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Reverted 2 edits by ] (]) to last revision by Sokoreq"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
# {{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:'''
<u>Comments:</u> <br />
# {{diff2|1267996755|18:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} "3rr"


This editor is vandalizing some of the reliably sourced content, removing the discussed information of some established pages and trying to twist the article words as per there own opinion without giving any backup or sources, this person keeps watching for a time when other editors are offline, so that this editor can revert the edits and start putting up own versions, once this person got to know that the editor who was trying to avoid his/her vandalism towards pages has been blocked this editor went to these pages as well as other pages by making up same reverts:-
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
Went to vandalize the similar pages, I can say none of these edits were ever discussed by this user anywhere, he/she even deleted the talks which were made by the other user, it can be seen that only those content have been removed which involves informative discussion or reply to a question/response, , , , , same thing was done in the page ] with actually more amount of vandalism,, , , , , , , , , and then this editor removed the warning which was made hardly a day ago on his/her own talk page.


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
Looking forward for some action regarding this editor, and comeback of all the removed content of these pages. ] (]) 13:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|one week}}. ] (]) 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: Conditionally declined) ==
*If he's vandalizing, the appropriate venue is ]. ] ] 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|History of India}} <br />
:*I've asked Sopher99 to respond here. The actual article where he is in danger of breaking 3RR is ]. I do not see any vandalism. It is troublesome to see a 3RR report submitted by an IP with no other edits. This risks violating ], which is part of the socking policy. ] (]) 22:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Garudam}}
::Actually you are right about ], see the latest vandalisms:-


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
Warning was given too, but soon removed by this same user as well. So i think that this user is going to continue edit warring. ] (]) 16:00, 31 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:'''
This is all VERY hilarious. You guys please look at this history of those pages. You will see that the edits of which i have reverted were the edits of ] a PROVEN SOCK ACCOUNT of user JusticeJayant. The IP that reported me is the IP of the user:justicejayant/Clarificationgiven. The rules are that sock accounts, particularly ones made for vandalism, have their edits reverted. Likewise I done so. ] (]) 00:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
Now this is SUPER hilarious, well, you are editing every page as per your likeness and bothering a lots of communities over here, you are removing the sourced contents much before the user got banned, and now your excuse is that 'user was sock' when it's actually about the content, which was written much before, who gave you permission to remove all talks?? Show a rule where it says. ] (]) 01:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:I gave reasons to you (clarificationgiven/justicejayant) but you chose to ignore them. Then when you were determined to be a sock account, I reverted your revisions to my edits for the additional reason of you being a sock account intended for vandalism/POV pushing. Talk edits by sockpuppets also get removed. ] (]) 02:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
::I don't see any correct reason, but only your personal likeness towards the content which you want to exist, and which you want to remove, no matter what a horrible amount of vandalism you are performing, since you have never bring on talks you have indeed broke the rules, talk edits by socks doesn't get removed, all you are doing is removing everybody's talk who is in some favor of the subject which you don't like, and even more when you are removing the talks on only those pages with which you are very obsessive. ] (]) 02:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
::Those were the articles most noteworthy of your presence, and yes talk edits by socks do get removed, especially ones that you used to try to distort the consensus, such as the talk edits which I just deleted. ] (]) 03:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Your point is incorrect, because the article involves the presence of a user, doesn't make you to remove anything that you don't like, for describing your hate, as it's more about contributed, instead of vandalizing the content which you don't like. You can't remove the talks of anybody, unless they are spam, hatespeech or totally off topic, so i am looking forward to the permission note which was passed to you by those users who's talks are removed by you.] (]) 03:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
This IP is almost certainly the indef-blocked Justicejayant/Clarification given. See ]. ~~ ] (]) 16:03, 31 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))
* Quack. '''Blocked'''. ] (]) 16:17, 31 July 2012 (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)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==


: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)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Zeitgeist Movement}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Wouter Drucker}}


== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24h) ==
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Westville Boys' High School}}
Previous version reverted to:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|37.72.154.146}}
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
# {{diff|oldid=1268186285|diff=1268208200|label=Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
## {{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:'''
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
# {{diff2|1268160425|11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on ]."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - note that Wouter Drucker had already posted that he was "Sorry for reverting two times". And note also that I've requested full page protection - this looks to me (in the context of another TZM editor (or possibly the same one under another account?) also making large unsourced changes to the article, see the history and talk page) like an attempt to 'game the system' in advance of protection. There is a long history of POV-pushing problems on this article. ] (]) 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160707|11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Conflict of interest on ]."


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:His last edit was prompted by a discussion by him and me, where he clearly only read part of what I was saying. I said "Yes, you can edit the page, if the things you add are neutral and reliably sourced, as per above." He seems to have stopped at the word "neutral", and hence prefixed every section with "Peter Joseph claims". He seems to have thought that this would have fixed the issue. I've attempted to explain why it didn't on his talk page. --] (]) 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268160586|11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* COI tag (January 2025) */ new section"


<u>Comments:</u> <br /> <u>'''Comments:'''</u>
*I propose a 24 hour block. ] ] 22:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC) {{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{AN3|already}} by ] for 31 hours. ] (]) 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->


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


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2012 Aurora shooting}} '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom}}<br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}}


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|HammerFilmFan}}


'''Time reported:''' 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


''Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC'' '''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
#


# <small>(edit summary: "/* Reaction */ removed-how is this directly related to this article?")</small> '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
#:Reversion of edits made by {{user|Canoe1967}}:
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 504979404 by ] (]) This was reported also in the Daily Mail, and NBC News Channel 4 in NY - what cite do you have that he has been released?")</small>
#:Reversion of edits made by {{user|130.65.109.101}}:
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 505004214 by ] (]) Anon IP - take your concerns to the Talk Pages, please, before doing this")</small>
#:Reversion of edits made by {{user|130.65.109.101}}:
# <small>(edit summary: "/* Related threats */ restored-this is not trivial - take your argument to the Talk Pages to discuss, he's being held for observation but has not been charged, if there is another cite, please note it on the TP")</small>
#:Reversion of edits made by {{user|130.65.109.101}}:
* Diff of warning:


'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
—] (]) 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


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


I edited ] and added templates for weasel words and unbalanced following ]. To my surprise, as I tried to submit my edit to address issues with the text, the user in question had already reverted my tags without discussion and just childishly wrote "No." as their justification for their revert, and then astonishingly raised the article protection. I then went to said user's talk page to try and discuss my numerous concerns, adding in-line templates for every line to truly help them see what I saw wrong with it as obviously I would assume good faith and just that their must have been some confusion, and even more astonishingly in under a minute they silently deleted that talk page discussion.
Warring? Three different editors reverted the Anon. The Anon was asked to please give cites (which his edits did not contain in their summaries) and to take it to the Talk Page, which he eventually did as far as opening a discussion on the TP (but no cite, just his view on BLP). The discussion on this particular topic has been civil on the Talk Page, with the exception of Viriditas's personal and unrelated comments about me, which I politely asked him to stop. For some reason, I seem to have raised a hackle with him, which is probably what this is all about. However, '''whatever recommendations the Admins wish to take, or actions, are fine with me,''' and I will take my saltwater-dipped lashes like a man. :-) This will be only comment on the matter, as I think I've summed up my view as best I can. Cheers! HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:While I would like to assume good faith, this user has deleted every attempt to contact him on his user talk page,. Discussion on the article talk page has been even worse, with trollish behavior and provocative discourse. Every attempt to communicate with the user has failed. From where I stand, this user is primarily a "revert-only" account used on ] (and other articles) raising concerns about its overall purpose. If there's any indication of encyclopedia building going on here, I haven't yet seen it. ] (]) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
::Who is calling the kettle a troll here? Some may think your edits ] and the related pages including my talk page may be considered 'trollish'. I agree with HammerFilmFan that you are focused on editors here and not the project.--] (]) 05:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{Comment}}. I have no qualms with his reversion of my edit. The material I added had no source, was contentiuos, and has since been added back after consensus and sources. I was going to find the source from the article history but decided to seek consenus before reverting his revert. I think the other reverts to the IPs were similar but different material in the article.--] (]) 05:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:*{{AN3|d}} because after that initial posting to the Talk page, the IP ceased to discuss (which means if I were to block, I'd have to do both, and I don't really wnat to at this stage) - ] &#124; <sup>] and ]</sup> 05:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


* This is beyond any possibility of good faith. I am saying this is now an irrefutable major abuse of power.
== ] reported by ] (Result: 24 hours) ==


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)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Blacklight Power}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Eric mit 1992}}


:'''They have been warned before''' about editing Child Sex Abuse in the UK in bad faith
<!-- 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:
:"""
:] 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)
<!-- 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. -->
::"NotQualified's almost entire contribution history has been to overtly push a right-wing agenda on Misplaced Pages regarding British politics."
* 1st revert:
::Incorrect, for example I was the one who almost exclusively wrote about the James McMurdock of ] abuse scandal, amongst other things. ]
* 2nd revert:
::Immediately accusing me of bad faith is deflection.
* 3rd revert:
::"I think that they are a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be blocked per ]."
* 4th revert:
::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.
* 5th revert:
::"There has been consistent consensus against NQ's position, see for example ]"
* 6th revert:
::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.
* 7th revert: note: this was not a revert by Eric mit 1992 ] (]) 01:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC). Looks like it is to me (not that it matters now) ] (]) 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
::"I "tried to delete me reporting them""
* 8th revert:
::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.
* 9th revert:
::"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: ) ==
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Biology and sexual orientation}}
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|80.200.232.89}}
<!-- 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:


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


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
# {{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:'''
:Eric mit 1992 is reverting multiple editors.
# {{diff2|1268273398|23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule."
:This article is about a company that purports to generate energy by methods that violate fundamental principles of physics. I.e. ] The company is making money from investors. Looking through the it would appear that Eric mit 1992 is attempting to whitewash the article. ] (]) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:: Wiki Administrators: Of course, what Jim1138 asserts and accuses, is not true. I have no doubt you'll find this to be the case, and come to full agreement with my point of view by a simple, cursory review of my edits, and especially my extensive 'Talk' on the subject, where I believe I can definitively state that the effort and thought I've put into the 'Talk' page far, far, far outweighs the effort and contribution of several other users combined, especially the two users who are in the process of accusing me of things I have not done. Note that I've addressed the 'fringe' and 'pseudo' topics in detail in the Talk page, as well as many other topics. Thankfully, due to mostly my efforts, the Blacklight Power page has climbed out of the depths of bias it previously existed in, and it's slowly approaching a solid, correct, unbiased, and fully referenced state. Many more edits, and much additional effort will be required to fully accomplish this goal, which is shared by all good Wiki editors, but I believe it will make a positive difference in the end. ] (]) 00:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
# {{diff2|1268273324|23:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* Vandalizing */"


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


:'''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)
Note to Bhny: "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."


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


== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 48 hours) ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Blacklight_Power#rexresearch


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|The Time (band)}}
It's unfortunate you chose to report my justified behavior, especially considering the irony that the same number of edits contrary to mine are the edits which are 'disruptive', not my edits. Furthermore, I am the only one who has participated in the Talk discussion on this matter, as referenced above, as of the exact time of this post: ] (]) 00:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|104.173.25.23}}
I ask for the Administrators kind consideration in removing this unjustified warning against me, and furthermore considering applying the warning to other relevant users if so justified. (better formatting of text ] (]) 00:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC))


'''Previous version reverted to:'''
Secondly, Wiki Administrators: I'm not sure if I need to open a case myself, but for now I'll reference the edit warning I kindly issued to 'Jim1138' in response to his multiple 'undo' operations on the valid edits I made, wherein I also justified those edits using ] and ], and wherein neither Jim1138, nor my accuser, 'Bhny' offered any associated 'Talk' on the matter, let alone cite guidelines supporting their disruptive edits.


'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jim1138&diff=505013109&oldid=505007978
# {{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:'''
] (]) 00:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Editor is still reverting. Just added the 8th revert ] (]) 00:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
:Added 9th revert ] (]) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
::Eric mit 1992 gave me a 3RR warning after two reverts ] (]) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


I just noticed this dispute and checked the recent page history. This has been going on for far too long and I think the editor has it in his head now that edit warring is a valid means of settling content disputes. Please block and perhaps the editor will understand that this behavior is unacceptable. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
: Bhny, Saedon, and Administrators: Please note, and please take the time to understand this -->> ] allows an un-cited and unprovable reference to be removed by the decision of an editor. Once the text is removed, the burden of proof lies on the editor who wishes to re-introduce the text by showing that the reference can be properly cited, which in this case would require that a reliable/reputable archive exists which contains the news story in question, where in fact the text of that news story can indeed be verified as true, let alone even existent in the first place. Furthermore, the raw text which is referenced on the wiki article exists on a web server that is by no uncertain terms NOT considered a ] (not even CLOSE). Clearly, this is one of the basic requirements of Misplaced Pages, if not the most important requirement. Therefore, all edits that I have performed have been justified, and in fact they are necessary in order to correct the disruptive edits that are being made against all related WP guidelines. Please also read the sections of the Talk page previously referenced here. One must invest the time to understand what is happening here, and therefore allow the proper resolution. ] (]) 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} ] (]) (]) 01:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Ongoing edit warring after warning on users talk page ] (]) 04:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==
* {{AN3|b|48 hours}} —''']''' (]) 04:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Stop Online Piracy Act}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|71.10.60.130}}


'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups}}
<!-- 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|Shecose}}
Previous version reverted to:


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


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


'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
<!-- 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: Sourced the assertion and attempted to begin discussion with the user (), to no avail. User has continued to revert without discussion.


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


*In addition to the active revert warring by 71.10.60.130, who has never commented on the talk page, we see a fair amount of IP vandalism earlier in July, including blanking of the whole article. I would favor at least a month of semiprotection. ] (]) 16:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
***{{AN3|b}} IP blocked for edit warring and page protected for a month. ] (]) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


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


Also note the ] (]) 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==


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)
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Spanish Empire}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Santos30}}

<!-- 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. -->

These reverts are in a simple way
* 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 -->

Better explained and detailed, it is the combination of two issues:
contemporary to a discussion of the flag to put in the Spanish empire article in wikipedia in Spanish, User santos30 did ​​two editions:
*This one to remove the pre-existing flag.
*This one to add a source about the incorporation of America to Castile.

With the simple argument of a historic coincidence of later centuries with Carlism Santos30 removed again the flag twice Then he began a discussion in the talk page, and while he has continued to try to impose his changes , despite I warned him his disruptive behavior

Regarding the addition of the source about American incorporation to Castile, I have stated several times that the adding breaks the meaning of the pre-existing sentence and paragraph, and therefore I changed the site of the source within the same article, fitting to the sense of the existing text. but no way, santos30 incorporates it back in the same place and even he hides the addition with the removal of the flag Although I have not deleted the source, Santos30 has canvassing a user and has said her that ''Trasamundo delete my contribution to put clear that America was a part of ]''

<!-- 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:

:: 3RR is not the main problem. The problem is that it is an ]. Do not exist any published source about cross Burgundy as a flag Spanish Empire. See long discussion . Trasamundo I can only tell you again and again: if you say -Burgundy- is "''more representative of Spanish Empire''" citation needed. Thanks. --] (]) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

*{{AN3|pe}} Protection will expire in 24 hours. ] (]) 23:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Flag of Syria}} <br />{{pagelinks|Talk:Syria}}
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|San culottes}}

;Edit warring at the ]
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

;Insulting at the ]
*

I also tried to explain to the user that he cann't continue edit warring without sources. He always shows sources based on his own conclusion (]) from certain images. Also, I warned him not to make any more edit reverts, but I also saw his insult at the ]. It is not possible to discuss with him in normal way. He also accused me of being a troll.


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


--<font face="Old English Text MT">]</font> 00:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs is the real problem here. He has being edit warring across a range of Syria related articles for the past several days. I have actually added references to all of my edits. Also, Wustenfuchs is including edits that arent actually reverts. ] 00:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::Also these edits are over a three day period with multiple intermediate edits by several other editors. This is nothing but a pathetic attempt by Wustenfuchs to smear another user for not agreeing with their own views. ] 00:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Not at all. Your constant editing without reliable source is edit warring, as you always return article to the earlier form. And also insults don't have a justification. --<font face="Old English Text MT">]</font> 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

::::What insults? You need to actually read what other users put and reach consensus, rather than make desperate attempts to silence other users by making invalid Administrators' noticeboard posts. ] 00:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::I don't trie to silence anybody. Stop accusing me for such action. Calling me to act like a troll, as you stated, and other user a liar are insults. There are far more better ways to explain how someone is wrong or not. --<font face="Old English Text MT">]</font> 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::I understand that English is not your first language Wustenfuchs, and I feel that this is a major impediment to you contributing constructively here. And yes, the user you are referring to, made an untrue and unproductive remark on a talk page, which constituted a ]. This editor ] I might add is a self-identified Assad supporter with an axe to grind. ] 01:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

*Here are the recent edits by ] at ]:

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

# <small>(edit summary: "The Syrian Independence flag flies in most of Syria, deleting it is vandalism")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "additional Ba'athist regime flag details")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Yes, actually laws in Libya recognize the independence flag as the flag of Syria")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "wikilink and additional image")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "added references")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "same previous")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "added reference")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 504853786 by ] (])No, not kidding")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 504932365 by ] (])")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "re-adding citations")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Undid revision 505030151 by ] (])this article has finally reached a stable state, see talk page for additional changes.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "undo actual vandalism which totally ignores the talk page consensus")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "Yeah evidence is plentiful. Stop being a troll and ignoring consensus.")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "added flag adoption details")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "same as previous edit")</small>
# <small>(edit summary: "refer to talk page consensus")</small>

Edits 1 & 2 are consecutive. So are 3-7, 9-10 and 13-15. So San culottes has made four reverts in the last 24 hours, and eight reverts altogether since 19:00 on 29 July. There is an underlying issue as to whether a rebel flag ought to be counted as the 'Flag of Syria' and ideally the editors would work that out on Talk. SC favors including the rebel flag as 'Flag of Syria'. At first glance Wustenfuchs' position seems more in accord with how things are done elsewhere on Misplaced Pages.
] (]) 02:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:The thing is, his sources are certain images from which he makes his own conclusion that is this rebel flag is adopted by the Syrian National Council, and it is not. Also for some reason he always ignores my source, a reliable one, 'cause it deals with the flags, where is stated that no flag is adopted and the the SNC uses both version, current one and the green version. They don't have a ''de iure'' flag, only ''de facto'', but those ''de facto'' flags are also very much disputed. --<font face="Old English Text MT">]</font> 02:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:There is also a thing which insults me, when he states that my goal is to silence other users, it sounds like I'm working for Mossad or FSB. Also, statses I act like a troll, and I really wonder why would he say that? I only asked for reliable source, and I only get insults that I'm biased and I'm trying to push my POV into articles, which I really don't. --<font face="Old English Text MT">]</font> 02:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours for edit warring. A similar dispute involving San culottes has taken place at ], which has led to that article being fully protected for a week. The gradual spread of full protection to more and more articles on a current event would be undesirable. In the meantime, it should not be too much to expect the active editors to work for consensus. ] (]) 05:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Still-24-45-42-125}}

<!-- 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:
* : warned for EW at ] on Jul 29
* : editor is notified that this is a content dispute and not vandalism

<!-- 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 ~~~~ -->
Still-24-45-42-125 is edit warring to keep "praised" out of the article as it relates to Romney's recent trip abroad. The pièce de résistance is revert #4. He knows he's about to cross the bright line so he invokes the BLP exemption. The problem is that he takes this opportunity to remove "praised" again. IMO this betrays his true intention: to eliminate the item over which he's been edit warring all day. 3RRNO exhorts editors to "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Still-24-45-42-125 is gambling that 3RRNO will give him cover for edit warring--well it's not going to work. Note: this editor has another report above. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

:{{AN3|b}} – 24 hours. I am not persuaded that the vandalism or BLP exceptions justify any of these reverts. ] (]) 06:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Ed Kosiski}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.96.136.158}}

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
User 68.96.136.158 resumed edit war after previous temporary block expired. Please revert to and extend protection.

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:'''Result:''' Semiprotected three months. The named IP seems to be POV pushing by inserting an unsourced defence of the subject of the article, who has been convicted in court according to reliable sources. The unsourced defence, though it is for the benefit of Kosiski, risks violating BLP by stating facts not in evidence. The four reverts listed are not timely -- only one of them is even in the last month. A long semi is used since a variety of IPs have been conducting the same dispute since April. Please try to reach consensus on the talk page. Normal editing by autoconfirmed editors should continue, assuming proper discussion. ] (]) 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, There has only been 1 edit in the past month because the page has been locked as a result of the previous activity. Do we need to go through this 4x each month? Also, I did not revert prior to reporting (I thought this was the proper process) - Can you please revert the prior edit? Thanks ] (]) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:The page was only semiprotected before. The page history shows the names of four registered accounts who are still able to edit. Consider making your proposal on the article talk page. If necessary use the {{tl|editsemiprotect}} template on the article talk to get assistance. ] (]) 23:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mitt Romney dog incident}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Arcandam}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:

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

<!-- 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 />
I oppose this report and I personally believe this is a waste of time. ] (]) 08:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, the editor ViriiK if <strike>Arkandam</strike> Arcandam is blocked. That seems like a no-no to me.] (]) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Do not misrepresent my statement. You are trying to insert an ] sentence in that article and are in a current debate over it. I was simply saying that if you took advantage of any block imposed against Arcandam, I will revert until there is a consensus. Thank you for giving me that idea to go make that suggestion over there. ] (]) 08:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::It may be a waste of time, but there is a clear 3RR violation. The only reason he should not be blocked would be if he was not aware of ] before his last revert; it is possible, as he states he is not a strong English-speaker. — ] ] 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Are you stating that you intend to edit-war? Please rephrase, if that is not your intention. — ] ] 09:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm not involved in any edit-war. My point is that since the piece is an ], it is a 3RR exemption. ] (]) 09:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Wait, where do you get the idea that removing undue content is an exemption? There are a few exemptions to 3RR but removing undue material is not one of them. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::Arcandam has previously been blocked for edit-warring (on July 5), so he knows what it's about. My warnings at his user talk (and at article talk) linked to ]. His English sounds fine to me (unlike ViriiK's).] (]) 09:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yaaaa okay. ] (]) 09:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::I remember that. That was funny. Read the comments that followed, like and . I decided to be kind to that admin, he made a stupid mistake, in general he does good work. ] (]) 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::@ViriiK: No worries mate. Admins have a brain. They'll read the diffs and the talkpage. The chance I get blocked is close to zero. That is why I don't even bother defending myself, it is just a waste of time. ] (]) 09:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I didn't check that. In that case, a 48-hour minimum block should be applied, probably to both parties, as the IP seems also to have reverted that many times. 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC) {{unsigned|Arthur Rubin}}
:::::::::Arthur Rubin, are you saying that I broke 3RR?] (]) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I think so. I could be wrong, though. I would expect the reviewing admin to check carefully, though. — ] ] 09:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:IMHO it is the "Mitt Romney dog incident" page that should be protected for a couple of days, I see a bit of stir there... ] (]) 09:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::Seems reasonable, as long as the tag remains. — ] ] 09:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Heaven forbid that anyone would ever protect the ]. ] (]) 09:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Actually, dispute tags can sometimes be added through protection, if it's clear to all concerned that there is a dispute, legitimate or not. As an involved admin, ''I'' wouldn't (intentionally) edit through protection, though. — ] ] 09:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} Arthur has been trouted, this can be closed. ] (]) 09:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
*{{AN3|p}} for 3 days. ] (]) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
*{{Comment}}. I find this humourous. It happened in 1983, the dog died in 1993, the interview was in 2007, and this is 2012. The dog is dust, the carrier was firewood, the car is probably part of my beer can now. They are finally locked in time.--] (]) 21:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Richard Dawkins}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kazemita1}}

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

<u>Comments:</u> <br /> Previous report ] --] (]) 17:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

My defense: The 1st edit that Old Moonraker claims to be a revert is not a revert; it is the conclusion of a long discussion in both the talk page and WP:RSN . The evidence for it is that none of the folks on the opposite side who were involved in those discussions tried to revert it and the edit was untouched for one full day. Many users on the talk page under section "Lack of Sufficient Criticism" have seen this edit and stated their consent with it. That being said, the 3rd edit has tried to cover the new concerns brought up by Snalwibma while remaining faithful to the previous discussions. --] (]) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:Many of those users that you speak of, oddly, have only ever edited that talk page. ] (]) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Side Note: If a group of users are dis-honoring the discussions of the talk page and trying to edit war in group -possibly to avoid individual 3RR- where should I complain to? Is there a rule that bans group edit warring?--] (]) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:Oh I think we are all actually following that discussion, but that is beside the point. ] (]) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
* I count at least six reverts on this article in the last few days against multiple editors. Using the talk page is not an excuse for edit-warring. '''Blocked''' for 48 hours. I would also consider opening an SPI about the brand new accounts on the talk page who appear to be very up-to-speed with Misplaced Pages policy in their first few edits. ] (]) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Hypnosifl}}

<!-- 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|Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)|505229962|505225728|08:51, 1 August 2012}}

<!-- 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: {{diff|Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)|505273434|505268368|15:26, 1 August 2012}}
* 2nd revert: {{diff|Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)|505275946|505274490|15:45, 1 August 2012}}
* 3rd revert: {{diff|Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)|505285815|505280606|16:56, 1 August 2012}}
* 4th revert: {{diff|Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time)|505295290|505294344|17:59, 1 August 2012}}

<!-- 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: {{diff|User talk:Hypnosifl|505292082|505289069|17:39, 1 August 2012}}

<!-- 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|User talk:Hypnosifl|next|505293644|17:59, 1 August 2012}}

<u>Comments:</u> ] is not talking about removing an RfC in it's entirety despite the objections of another user, (as nominator, Hypnosifl should have removed the tag only, per ]). Clearly, WP:REDACT is talking about striking out the extant comments of another user. In any case, despite my objections, Hypnosifl removed the <del>comment</del> <ins>RfC summary</ins> a fifth time, (regardless of strikeout).
:“<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:56, 1 August 2012</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->”
does not suffice for:
:“Summary of ]: Question about the metaphysical view known as ], namely, whether the given sources justify the statement "Eternalism, defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, is also known as the "'''block universe'''" theory", or whether this should be changed to a weaker statement that eternalism is only "sometimes known as" the block universe theory, because of the possibility that some philosophers define the meaning of the term "eternalism" differently from the meaning of the term "block universe". ] (]) 07:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)”

Also, please note there's currently a dispute resolution discussion at ].—] 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
<br />

:] does not indicate to me that there is anything wrong with removing an RfC (both tag and summary paragraph) an hour or two after adding it, before anyone has actually commented on the issue. I have already said to Machine Elf that my reason for removing it was that Machine Elf had said I misrepresented his/her position on the talk page, and since I wasn't sure what specific characterizations Machine Elf was referring to, I was worried that my RfC summary might contain an inadvertent misrepresentation of Machine Elf's side of the debate too, so I wanted to remove the whole thing until that was cleared up (I have also said that if Machine Elf approves the summary, I would be happy to put back both the RfC and the summary). ] indicates that the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments is that others may have already responded to them, but no one had yet responded to the RfC or the summary; ] also says it's OK to remove a comment and replace it with a "placeholder" summarizing the former comment in brackets, which is what I did with the summary paragraph after Machine Elf complained about my removing it. I don't see anything in the rules that requires that I leave the full paragraph up, if there is please point it out. ] (]) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::None of the previous attempts to get that "cleared up" at the dispute resolution notice board, <ins>on the article talk page</ins> and on his talk page have altered his misrepresentation of the dispute. The fact is, he removed it an hour later, ''after'' it had already posted to everyone's watchlist. It's confusing and inconsistent for it to simply vanish, and replacing with a <del>comment</del> <ins>"placeholder" saying</ins> that I'm somehow responsible for it's ''removal'' is some kind of joke.—] 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::*] {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy|505225838|505082113|08:01, 1 August 2012}} {{small|{{gray|''(Added: Talk:Eternalism (philosophy of time).)''}}}}
::Hypnosifl claims “] indicates that the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments is that others may have already responded to them”. However, what ] actually says is: “It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement.” —] 19:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, the sentence starting "Other users may have already quoted you" is exactly what I was referring to when I talked about "the main reason for avoiding deleting your own comments". Furthermore, the page then immediately goes on to list acceptable alternatives to total deletion, including the option of putting a "placeholder" in brackets which briefly summarizes what was in the comment. ] (]) 19:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Your comments about "misrepresentation" on the talk page haven't told me what specific views you think I am attributing to you that you don't actually hold--see . And my placeholder doesn't say you are "responsible" for its removal, it says that ''I'' chose to remove it out of concern that the issue of misrepresentation needed to be clarified first: "". I'd be happy to change the wording of the bracketed placeholder in some way (as long as I feel the proposed change would still be accurate) if you have any suggestions. ] (]) 19:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::That's not true, his "request for clarification" is ''ad nauseum'' and ]. What would give him the impression that I'm interested in negotiating the "the wording of the bracketed placeholder in some way"? Clearly I want the 100% accurate RfC summary to be restored.—] 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::If it's "ad nauseum", I'd say that's primarily because you refuse to ever actually answer these requests by clearly spelling out how I have misrepresented you (see ], "Do not ignore reasonable questions.") If you think you have already done this adequately, perhaps it would help others to judge if you quoted one or more of your own previous comments that you think clearly states some specific way I have misrepresented you, and I can point out if I had any followup questions indicating I thought your statement was unclear, and whether you responded to those.

:::::I offered to change the placeholder because you made a specific complaint about the content of the placeholder, 'replacing with a <del>comment</del> <ins>"placeholder" saying</ins> that I'm somehow responsible for it's ''removal'' is some kind of joke.' I wanted to defuse that as a possible issue, so the only remaining issue is whether it is broadly unacceptable to remove an RfC you just created (and which hadn't yet gotten any responses) and replace the summary paragraph with a bracketed placeholder.] (]) 19:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::Hypnosifl, ]. That's not true, but I refuse to continue to do so, ''ad nauseum''. Perhaps no one cares because it's irrelevant to your 3RR violation? The basic issue is whether or not they'll block you for it.—] 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Are you suggesting that my "3RR violation" is the reason you're asking me to be blocked, rather than the basic issue that I deleted my own RfC summary and didn't go along with your attempts to replace it? I think the ] refers to reverting ''other'' editor's changes rather than your own (the statement of the rule says "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert"), so you initiated the back-and-forth of undoing my attempt to delete it and my re-deleting it, and you did so more than 3 times in a 24 hour period (, , and ). ] (]) 20:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::And of course I admit that I ''also'' undid your own attempts to put my summary back more than three times (I hadn't been thinking about the three-revert rule so I didn't keep track), although with the first one I was hoping that by adding a bracketed placeholder I would be satisfying your request that I not simply erase all record of the summary (likewise, the last of your four edits above was perhaps trying to satisfy my request that you not put a strike through my text without permission by replacing the summary but not putting the strike through it). ] (]) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Also, since both of us did end up violating the 3RR (though in both cases, one of the four edits included an attempt to accommodate the other's complaints, as noted above), if either or both of us end up being temporarily blocked by the admins, can I request that the admin also give some comment on how to handle the issue of my having deleted my own RfC summary (which again, no one had responded to yet, and which I replaced by a placeholder to try to make sure I wasn't violating ]) once the block ends? Is this or is this not in itself a violation of any wikipedia rules/guidelines? ] (]) 21:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
:{{AN3|nv}} – Undoing your own edits is an explicit exception to ], which is a policy. ] is only a guideline. In my personal opinion, violations of 3RR on talk pages are blockable, but they have to be changes or removal of *others'* comments. There is an and hopefully the underlying dispute can be resolved there. As a mechanical matter, if you agree with the previous wording of the RfC and want it restored, you can add that to the talk page as your own comment. Rather than continuing to war over the RfC I recommend participating at DRN. ] (]) 17:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Battle of Aleppo (2012)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|DanielUmel}}

<!-- 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: No easy answer here; the editor has been reverting everyone else all day long.

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:
Others can probably be found given this user's activity if necessary, but at least these seven were explicitly labelled as 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 -->

<!-- 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> Editor exceeded 3RR long before I arrived at the page tonight. <br />

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

Khazar2 keeps removing something that has already been decided on the talk page. Another editor was removing the same content yesterday before I posted all the sources on talk page. Then, Khazar2, unaware of what happenned, and apparently unable to check the talk page start removing it again and again despite the information I gave to him. --] (]) 08:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:Given his rage at my report, someone might speak to Daniel about ] as well.
:"It is not my fault you are completely unable to read a talk page. You should maybe restrict yourself to you automatic tool helped citations fixing."
:"If only you was able to read."
:"You are butthurt from being unable to read a talk page and for making yourself look bad for editing out something that was discussed and sourced yesterday? I understand it"
:"It is quite unfortunate that you have to be babied so much just to find something obvious. And at the end you will be forced to agree with me because that's what written in the source. I find it amusing that you are losing your nerves so quickly for something you don't understand."
:Cheers, ] (]) 08:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Repeat offender, revert-warring on several articles in parallel, got away with a warning just a few days ago. Any further blocks should escalate in length very quickly. ] ] 08:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

== ] reported by User:92.40.253.189 (Result: removed) ==

'' Report by block-evading vandal IP removed. {{ipuser|92.40.253.189}} is evidently the same as earlier vandals {{ipuser|92.40.254.144}}, {{ipuser|92.40.254.28}}, {{ipuser|92.40.254.28}} etc. ] ] 11:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)''

== ] reported by ] (Result: 48 hour block) ==

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Kashmir conflict}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Opinedsenior}}

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

<u>Comments:</u> See the history of the article and of this user. This user also doesn't AGF and ] and was warned several times (which he ignored).<br />

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

:{{nao}} - My opinion is that this is just inflaming the situation. On top of that there isn't technically a violation of 3RR as one of the edits was not an undo. Plus the fourth and last revert happened about 30 mins ago <u>(sorry it was more than that - I was looking at the wrong edit)</u> and was one minute after the user was given a level 4 vandalism warning (so there is no way to know if they had seen it before they reverted). As well the user has not edited for more than 30 minutes, I would advocate a wait and see approach. ''']''' (] • ]) <small>] (etc) template appreciated.</small> 11:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

*{{AN3|b|48 hours}} There was more edit warring than indicated in the above edits, and the edit warring was in any case just one dimension of a wider pattern of unacceptable editing. ] (]) 13:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|North Vietnam}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Nguyen1310}}

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

Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:
* 5th revert:
* 6th revert:
* 7th revert:

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

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: actually from a few weeks ago, but involving the same 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: and user talk

Article protected for 3 days, seems there were two editors guilty of 3rr violation here. ] (]) 15:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

:Hi, my concern is that why only myself is reported for edit warring, when the other user Zeraful has also engaged in edit warring, who has been deleting content from that article, and when I reinstated those deleted content items, that user kept undoing my edits, like around 5 times. It seems quite unfair that I'm being penalized for edit warring only, when clearly 2 editors are engaged in the same act. And, I was the one who actually made the compromise edits on the article, several of them, while Zeraful didn't, and after finding a compromise resolution on the article, with input by the other user, i'm the only one who gets reported for edit warring. The Battle of Khe Sanh article had the same problem involving the same user. I'm suspecting discrimination by the reporting user, because the reporting user has pointed only myself out for edit warring, but did not extend the same action to other parties involved in the dispute.] (]) 19:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using. ~~~~ -->
* Not involved but just pointing out that neither you nor Zeraful have been penalized for the edit war, the page is just being protected until you guys sort it out on the article's talk page. ] (]) 00:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|List of The Real Housewives of New Jersey episodes}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|68.37.29.229}}

<!-- 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 -->
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on 3 user talk pages:

<u>Comments:</u> <br />
The IP editor continues to add copyrighted material to an article, (copy&pasted from a television network website) arguing that the text is not subject to copyright because it is promotional in nature and/or it qualifies as Non-Free-use, despite being told by 3 editors (myself and 2 others) that this is not the case. --] (]) 01:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
*{{AN3|b|31 hours}} ] (]) 01:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|User talk:Coren}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Youreallycan}}

<!-- 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 />

<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
Youreallycan has sought fit to add his own personal (although minor) addition of a wikilink to a comment I left on ]. I told him in an edit summary that I did not give him permission to effectively ]. After he reverted me, I left him a message on his talk page regarding the fact I did not want him to do this. After I reverted, again, he reverted me and I left him a sterner message (the one in the diff above), but he put back the content in the first place. I do not care if it is helpful. He is adding it to my message on Coren's talk page in a way that makes it appear that I put the link there. This is getting way too bothersome and pedantic, and it is edit warring plain and simple, particularly when I expressed my distaste in his actions in regards to the text I left for another editor.—] (]) 01:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

*Oh gosh someone please just ban YRC already for this crap. ] (]) (]) 01:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:23, 9 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

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

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Vandalism

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


    Comments:

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

    Page: Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    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:

    1. 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."
    2. 08:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268345471 by CNMall41 (talk) Undiscussed move. There are multiple people edited this article."
    3. 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268344773 by CNMall41 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

    Categories: